111;  "'^^■•"^ 


(5$vf;^;. 


^   1( 


SOUTHERN  ERAT^Cli, 
liNIVERSITY  Of  CALIFORNIA 

LIBRARY, 


m 


f/ 


^ 

ty 


Jean  Gianini. 
(Upper  picture  taken  in  jail.     Printed  by  permission  of  Zintsmaster  and  Jones,  Herkimer,  N.  Y., 

Photographers.) 


THE 
CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

AN    ANALYSIS    OF    THREE 
REMARKABLE    MURDER    CASES 


BY 


HENRY    HERBERT   GODDARD 

DIRECTOR   OF   DEPARTMENT  OF    RESEARCH 
VINELAND  TRAINING   SCHOOL 


Weto  gotk 

THE    MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

1915 

^11  rights  reserved 


Copyright,  1915, 

By  the  macmillan  company. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.     Published  September,  igij. 


7  01^H- 


NortDool)  i^rtsa 

J.  8.  Gushing  Co.  —  Berwick  &,  Smith  Co. 

Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


HV 
(^54 


■  i 


LATt 


P. 


PREFACE 

This  book  is  offered  to  the  public  in  the  belief  that  the 
three  cases  herein  described  are  typical  of  a  large  proportion 
of  criminal  cases  and  that  the  analysis  and  discussion  at- 
tempted will  help  to  make  clear  important  points  which  are 
often  misunderstood,  points  relative  to  the  criminal  and  to 
the  imbecile. 

A  clear  conception  of  the  nature  of  the  imbecile  and  of 
his  relation  to  crime  will  inevitably  result  in  a  most  desirable 
change  in  our  criminal  procedure. 

It  should  be  noted  that  we  use  "imbecile"  in  the  legal 
sense  which  includes  the  moron  and  often  the  idiot  as  scien- 
tifically classified.  This  usage  is  justified  since  much  of  the 
literature  still  describes  all  mental  defectives  as  imbeciles, 
idiots,  or  feeble-minded  —  according  to  the  preference  of  the 
writers. 

These  cases  are  unique  in  that  they  were  the  first  court 
cases  in  which  the  Binet-Simon  tests  were  admitted  in  evi- 
dence, the  mental  status  of  these  persons  under  indictment 
being  largely  determined  by  this  method. 


vi  PREFACE 

It  happens,  also,  that  these  cases  well  illustrate  three 
phases  of  the  workings  of  defective  minds.  Jean  Gianini 
shows  the  criminal  imbecile  of  high  grade  and  of  loquacious 
type  working  by  himself.  Roland  Pennington,  equally 
high  grade  but  of  a  quiet,  phlegmatic  temperament,  shows 
how  a  defective  mind  works  under  suggestion.  Finally, 
Tronson  shows  the  crude  brutality  of  a  somewhat  lower 
grade  defective. 

In  the  chapter  on  Responsibility  we  have  tried  to  indi- 
cate the  difference  between  verbal  morality  and  deep-seated, 
appreciated,  moral  principle.  A  child  may  have  the  former 
but  the  latter  comes  only  with  experience  and  the  age  at 
least  of  the  adolescent. 

We  would  remind  the  reader  that  in  the  confessions  and 
the  appendices  we  have  had  at  hand  only  stenographic 
reports. 

If  this  book  shall  help  the  lawyer  to  make  a  more  suc- 
cessful defense  of  the  imbecile  criminal,  the  judge  to  dis- 
pense justice  to  this  much  misunderstood  class  of  high  grade 
imbeciles,  and  society  in  general  to  realize  its  responsibility 
for  the  mental  defective,  it  will  have  fulfilled  its  mission. 


H.  H.  G. 


Research  Labokatory  or  the  Training  School 

IN    ViNlLAND,    N.  J. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Preface        v 

CHAPTER 

I.     The  Case  of  Jean  Gianini i 

II.     The  Case  of  Roland  Pennington         ...  42 

III.  The  Case  of  Fred  Tronson 65 

IV.  The  Criminal  Imbecile 83 

V.     Responsibility 94  i^ 

VI.     The  Punishment  for  Criminal  Imbeciles    .         .  100 

APPENDICES 

A.  Gianini    Case.      Hypothetical    Question    Pro- 

pounded BY  THE  Defense       ...         .         .  109 

B.  Gianini    Case.      Hypothetical    Question    Pro- 

pounded by  the  Prosecution         .         .         •  131 

C.  Gianini      Case.         Defendant's     Request     to 

Charge     ........  139 

Index I55 


Vll 


LIST    OF    ILLUSTRATIONS 


Jean  Gianini          .......    Frontispiece 

FACING   PAGE 

Roland  Pennington      .         .         .         .         .         .         .42 

Fred  Tronson       ........       66 


THE  CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

CHAPTER   I 

THE    CASE    OF    JEAN    GIANINI 

"We  find  the  defendant  in  this  case  not  guilty  as 
charged ;  we  acquit  the  defendant  on  the  ground  of 
criminal  imbecility." 

Such  was  the  verdict  by  the  jury  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Herkimer  County,  New  York,  on  May  28th, 
1914,  in  the  case  of  the  people  vs.  Jean  Gianini,  in- 
dicted for  the  murder  of  Lida  Beecher,  his  former 
teacher. 

The  prosecution  and,  at  first  at  least,  the  majority  of 
the  citizens  of  the  community  held  that  this  had  been 
a  carefully  planned,  premeditated,  cold-blooded  mur- 
der of  the  most  atrocious  character,  committed  with 
a  fiendishness  seldom  seen  among  human  beings.  It 
was,  on  the  other  hand,  claimed  by  the  defense  that  the 
boy  was  an  imbecile,  that  he  had  only  the  intelligence 
of  a  ten-year-old  child,  that  he  did  not  know  the  nature 
and  quality  of  his  act,  and  that  he  did  not  have  any 


\ 


2  THE   CRIMIN-\L   IMBECILE 

true  realization  of  the  enormity  of  his  crime.  For 
some  reason  unaccountable  to  a  great  many  people, 
the  jur}'  accepted  the  view  of  the  defense. 

Not  infrequently  have  verdicts  in  murder  trials 
been  unacceptable  to  the  populace.  In  that  respect 
this  verdict  is  not  an  exceptional  one,  but  from  other 
standpoints  it  is  remarkable.  Probably  no  verdict 
in  modem  times  has  marked  so  great  a  step  forw^ard 
in  society's  treatment  of  the  wrongdoer.  For  the 
first  time  in  histor\^  psychological  tests  of  intelligence 
have  been  admitted  into  court  and  the  mentality  of  the 
accused  established  on  the  basis  of  these  facts. 

The  value  of  this  verdict  cannot  be  overestimated. 
It  establishes  a  new  standard  in  criminal  procedure. 
It  recognizes  that  weakness  of  mind,  as  an  excuse  for 
crime,  is  of  the  same  importance  as  disease  of  mind ; 
puts  feeble-mindedness  in  the  same  category'  with 
insanity,  and  requires  that  it  like  insanity  be  con- 
sidered in  all  discussions  of  responsibility.  Wlien  we 
add  the  now  accepted  fact  that  the  feeble-minded  are 
at  least  as  numerous  as  the  insane,  we  see  the  far- 
reaching  significance  of  this  standard  set  by  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  Herkimer  County,  New  York. 

That  the  verdict  has  not  been  at  once  acceptable 
to  the  people  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  character  and 


THE   CASE   OF  JEAN  GIANINI  3 

the  limitations  of  the  high-grade  imbecile  are  not 
understood.  With  a  view  to  explaining  this  type  of 
defective,  which  the  defendant  so  well  illustrates,  we 
propose  in  the  fallowing  pages  to  go  over  the  histor}^ 
of  this  case,  explaining  the  facts  in  the  light  of  present- 
day  knowledge  of  the  feeble-minded. 

The  facts  in  the  case  as  established  by  testimony  :  — 
On  the  morning  of  March  28th,  1914,  Henn,'  Fitch, 
a  farmer  of  Herkimer  County,  accompanied  by  his 
son,  started  on  his  usual  work  to  deliver  milk.  At  a 
point  in  the  highway,  approximately  one  mile  from 
the  village  of  Poland,  Mr.  Fitch  saw  blood  and  signs 
of  a  struggle  in  the  snow  and  slush  in  the  road ;  he  also 
found  an  umbrella  and  a  hat.  A  bloody  path  led  out 
of  the  road  to  a  point  some  hundred  and  thirty  feet 
away.  Following  the  tracks  he  found  the  body,  which 
proved  to  be  that  of  Lida  Beecher,  one  of  the  school- 
teachers in  the  village  of  Poland.  She  lay  at  full 
length  on  her  face,  both  arms  under  her.  The  body 
was  removed  to  Sprague's  undertaking  rooms  in  the 
village. 

On  the  same  morning  Jean  Gianini,  sixteen  years 
old,  left  his  father's  house  on  the  edge  of  the  village 
to  go  to  the  home  of  Sam  Hutchinson,  where  he  was 
working  and  taking  his  meals.     He  had  his  breakfast, 


4  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

went  to  the  bam,  and  worked  a  short  time.  When  Mr. 
Hutchinson  went  out  a  little  later,  he  could  not  find 
Jean.  A  Mr.  Smith  said  he  had  seen  him  going  down 
the  tracks  toward  Newport.  William  Taylor,  the 
track  foreman,  said  he  passed  Jean  near  the  bridge. 
Mr.  Hutchinson  then  sent  word  to  the  boy's  father 
that  he  had  gone.  The  father,  supposing  his  son  had 
run  away  as  he  frequently  did,  telephoned  to  Newport 
asking  that  he  be  apprehended  and  sent  home.  This 
was  before  anything  was  known  of  the  crime.  Peck 
Newman,  to  whom  the  father  telephoned,  found  Jean 
in  a  grocery  store  in  Newport.  He  had  been  appre-  j 
hended  at  the  depot.  He  was  taken  home  and  then  to 
the  Justice  of  the  Peace.  Here  he  was  stripped,  pre- 
sumably for  the  purpose  of  discovering  whether  there 
was  any  blood  upon  his  clothing  or  his  body.  Although 
there  is  no  evidence  that  any  stains  were  found,  yet  he 
had  no  sooner. been  stripped  than  he  made  a  free  and 
open  confession.  We  shall  consider  this  confession  in 
detail  later.  In  substance  he  said  that  he  killed  Miss 
Beecher  to  get  revenge,  because  she  had  humiliated 
him  in  school.  He  told  in  detail  how  he  had  accom- 
plished this  and  what  had  been  his  movements  shortly 
before  and  after  the  deed.  On  the  strength  of  this 
confession  and  such  corroborative  evidence  as  could  be 


THE   CASE   OF   JEAN   GIANINI  5 

obtained  from  local  witnesses  the  prosecution  sought 
to  convict  this  boy  of  murder  In  the  first  degree. 

It  was  understood  at  first  that  the  defense  would 
attempt  to  prove  that  he  was  Insane.  There  did  not 
seem  to  be  much  evidence  of  Insanity  and  It  did  not 
appear  that  the  prosecution  was  In  great  fear  of  such  a 
verdict.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  real  defense  was 
imbecility.  It  Is  probable  that  this  defense  was  less 
♦intelligible  to  people  who  knew  Jean  Glanlnl  than  that 
of  insanity  would  have  been.  To  one  familiar  with 
Imbecility,  however,  there  Is  no  shadow  of  a  doubt  of 
the  correctness  of  this  diagnosis.  The  only  possible 
question  in  the  mind  of  any  such  person  would  be 
whether  a  defective  of  such  high  grade  knew  the  nature 
and  quality  of  his  act  and  knew  that  It  was  wrong,  and 
was  therefore  responsible  for  his  act.  This  point  the 
jury  decided,  and  we  shall  attempt  to  show  by  a  study 
of  the  case  that  they  decided  correctly. 

Much  of  the  confusion  In  the  mind  of  the  public  and 
dissatisfaction  with  the  result  In  this  case  Is  due  to  a 
failure  to  understand  the  nature  and  character  of  the 
imbecile.  Most  of  the  acts  and  the  utterances  of  the 
defendant,  which  seemed  to  many  people  to  Indicate 
his  soundness  of  mind,  his  premeditation  and  planning 
of  the  murder,  are  in  reality  so  thoroughly  character- 


6  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

Istic  of  the  imbecile  as  to  leave  no  doubt  whatever  of 
his  low  mentality. 

We  have  already  given  all  that  is  known  of  the  cir- 
cumstances except  certain  details  which  Jean  claimed 
in  his  confession,  and  certain  acts  and  utterances  which 
were  testified  to  by  local  witnesses. 

We  may  now  examine  these  testimonies,  reserving 
his  confession  for  a  later  discussion.  So  far  as  the 
crime  itself  is  concerned  but  little  testimony  was 
brought  forward ;  so  little,  in  fact,  that  without  the 
boy's  confession  he  probably  could  never  have  been 
convicted  of  the  deed. 

On  the  evening  of  the  tragedy  Jean  was  seen  by 
several  people  walking  up  the  street  toward  his  home 
in  company  with  his  victim.  Two  days  before  this 
he  had  been  heard  to  ask  her  when  she  was  coming  to 
see  his  father  about  his  returning  to  school ;  to  this  she 
had  replied,  that  she  "did  not  know";  and  he  had 
answered,  "Aw,  I  don't  believe  you  intend  to  come  at 
all,  you  will  wait  until  summer  time,  and  go  home  and 
then  it  will  be  too  late."  On  the  following  evening  he 
again  asked  her  to  go  up  to  his  house.  She  said  she 
could  not  go  then,  as  she  was  going  to  prayer  meeting, 
but  she  would  go  the  next  night.  He  had  also  Inquired 
of  certain  persons  whether  she  went  to  the  Post  Office 


THE   CASE  OF  JEAN  GIANINI  7 

in  the  evening.  On  one  occasion  he  had  been  seen 
with  an  old  rusty  wrench  in  his  pocket  and  when  asked 
what  he  was  doing  with  it,  he  had  replied,  "  I  have  use 
for  it."  This  was  the  wrench  with  which  he  struck  his 
victim  the  death-blow,  according  to  his  confession. 

Previous  to  the  tragedy  he  had  told  certain  persons 
that  he  meant  to  get  even  with  Miss  Beecher.  The 
wrongs  for  which  he  claimed  to  have  desired  revenge 
had  occurred  more  than  a  year  before  the  tragedy. 
For  over  a  year  he  had  been  out  of  school  and  had  been 
working  a  part  of  that  time.  For  some  months  he  had 
been  an  inmate  of  St.  Vincent's  School,  to  which  insti- 
tution he  was  committed  by  a  Justice  of  the  Peace  at 
the  instigation  of  his  father  because  of  his  propensity 
to  jump  freight  trains. 

The  evidence  was  strongly  against  the  idea  that  Miss 
Beecher  had  ever  done  anything  to  injure  him  or  any- 
thing which  would  reasonably  cause  resentment  in  his 
mind.  He  had  not  gotten  along  well  in  his  studies 
after  going  into  her  room,  had  been  more  or  less  dis- 
orderly, and  she,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  principal,  had 
seated  him  facing  the  wall  with  his  back  to  the  rest  of 
the  school.  She  had  occasionally  sent  him  up  to  the 
principal,  who  had  sometimes  flogged  him. 

On  the  night  of  the  deed  Jean  was  seen  walking  up 


8  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

the  street  with  Miss  Beecher  at  something  after  seven 
o'clock  in  the  evening ;  before  eight  o'clock  he  was  at 
home  in  his  father's  house ;  there  he  was  given  an 
errand  to  do  and  went  down  the  street,  returning  shortly; 
spent  some  time  in  reading  and  then  went  to  bed. 
The  next  morning  he  was  at  his  place  of  work  as  already 
mentioned.  The  wrench  which  had  been  seen  in  his 
pocket  was  found  near  the  scene  of  the  murder.  These 
are  the  only  known  facts  bearing  upon  the  case,  previous 
to  his  own  confession.  For  further  items  of  evidence 
see  the  hypothetical  questions  propounded  by  the  pros- 
ecution and  by  the  defense — Appendix,  pp.  109-138. 

The  fact  that  he  was  the  last  person  seen  with  her, 
that  the  monkey  wrench  at  one  time  seen  in  his  pocket 
was  found  at  the  scene  of  the  deed,  that  he  left  his 
place  of  work  and  went  down  the  railroad  track  toward 
Newport,  was  sufficient  to  arouse  suspicion.  It  is 
more  than  doubtful  whether  the  evidence  could  have 
resulted  in  an  indictment  by  a  grand  jury,  and  practi- 
cally certain  it  never  could  have  resulted  in  a  convic- 
tion. The  absence  of  any  real  motive  for  the  act  would 
have  been  fatal  to  such  an  attempt.  The  absence  of 
evidence  of  a  prearranged  plan  is  also  a  serious  lack.  It 
is  true  that,  when  we  have  the  confession  and  the  later 
explanations,  the  presence  of  the  monkey  wrench   in 


THE   CASE  OF  JEAN  GIANINI  9 

his  pocket  and  his  words  that  he  "had  use  for  it" 
sound  Hke  a  prearranged  plan,  and  yet  there  is  no  real 
evidence  here.  He  might  have  had  the  monkey  wrench 
for  a  dozen  purposes  and  have  given  the  same  answer. 
Perhaps  his  threat  to  get  even  with  her,  his  remark 
"that  if  he  had  a  revolver  he  would  shoot  her,"  may  be 
considered  more  serious,  but  certainly  no  jury  could 
convict  him  merely  on  the  basis  of  such  statements. 

It  is  reasonably  certain  then  that,  had  he  not  con- 
fessed, he  never  would  have  been  convicted  even  if  he 
had  been  indicted.     Let  us  now  examine  the  confession. 

Gianini^s  Confession:  Jean  Gianini,  being  duly 
sworn,  deposes  and  says  he  resides  in  the  village  of 
Poland  and  is  sixteen  years  old ;  deponent  further  says, 
"I  went  to  school  to  Lida  Beecher  and  had  trouble 
with  her  and  wanted  to  get  revenge. 

"  I  met  her  above  the  hotel  and  walked  up  the  street 
with  her  up  beyond  the  stone  quarry ;  she  had  been  a 
coming  to  see  my  folks  about  school  and  was  a  coming 
up  to  see  them  last  night  and  I  told  her  they  lived  up 
the  hill,  and  when  we  got  up  there  on  the  left  side  of  the 
road,  I  hit  her  with  a  monkey  wrench  that  I  got  out  of 
my  father's  bam.  I  had  the  wrench  in  my  pocket 
when  I  went  up. 


lo  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

"After  I  had  hit  her  about  three  times  with  the  wrench, 
I  hit  her  with  a  knife  several  times,  to  be  sure  to  finish 
her,  and  then  I  took  her  over  in  the  lot ;  I  dragged  her 
by  the  foot ;  and  then  I  went  home  and  got  there 
about  7 :  30. 

"The  knife  I  stabbed  her  with  was  one  that  belonged 
to  my  father  and  I  took  it  home  and  put  it  in  the 
pantry  drawer. 

"  I  left  the  wrench  somewhere  near  where  I  hit  her. 
When  I  hit  her  first,  she  did  not  scream  but  moaned. 

"  She  said  she  thought  it  was  quite  a  ways  and  she 
did  not  see  any  house. 

"  I  was  not  afraid  when  I  got  home ;  I  was  just  as 
happy  as  I  ever  was  and  didn't  think  anything  about 
it  as  I  thought  I  had  revenge. 

"  I  make  this  statement  voluntarily  and  under  no  fear 

or  threat  and  knowing  the  same  may  be  used  against 

me. 

"Jean  Gianini. 

"  Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  28th  day 

of  March,  1914. 

"  Fred  Moore, 

^^ Justice  of  the  Peace  of  Town  of  Russia.^^ 

In  its  main  points  the  confession  must  be  accepted 
as  true.     To  refuse  to  accept  it  would  be  to  admit  at 


THE   CASE  OF  JEAN  GIANINI  ii 

once  without  further  proof  that  the  boy  was  crazy  or 
an  imbecile,  since,  if  it  were  not  true,  it  is  inconceiv- 
able that  any  normal  person  would  claim  to  have  done 
such  a  deed.  It  is  accepted  then  by  all  that  Jean 
Gianini  killed  Lida  Beecher  on  the  night  of  March  27th, 
1914.  There  is  no  difference  of  opinion  on  that  point. 
It  is  now  only  a  question  of  his  responsibility. 

We  may  now  review  the  facts  and  see  what  is  the 
evidence :  first,  that  he  is  an  imbecile ;  second,  that 
being  an  imbecile,  he  did  not  know  the  nature  and 
quality  of  his  act  and  that  it  was  wrong. 

Is  Jean  Gianini  an  imbecile  ^  What  is  an  imbecile  } 
We  cannot  expect  to  agree  upon  the  question  of  whether 
Jean  is  an  imbecile  until  we  agree  upon  the  defini- 
tion of  imbecile.  There  are  various  ways  of  desig- 
nating this  type  of  individual.  Imbecility,  as  used  in 
law  in  this  country,  may  be  defined  as  "the  state  of 
mental  defect  existing  from  birth  or  from  an  early  age, 
due  to  incomplete  cerebral  development,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  the  person  affected  is  unable  to  per- 
form his  duties  as  a  member  of  society."  The  high- 
grade  imbecile,  such  as  the  person  under  discussion, 
feeble-minded  as  he  is  called  in  England,  or  the  moron 
as  we  are  coming  to  call  him  in  the  United  States,  is 
one  who  is  "capable  of  earning  a  living  under  favorable 


12  THE  CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

circumstances,  but  is  incapable  from  mental  defect, 
existing  from  birth  or  from  an  early  age,  {a)  of  compet- 
ing on  equal  terms  with  his  normal  fellows,  or  {b)  of 
managing  himself  or  his  affairs  with  ordinary  prudence." 
These  definitions  were  formulated  by  the  Royal  College 
of  Physicians  of  England,  and  accepted  by  the  Royal 
Commission  on  the  Care  and  Control  of  the  Feeble- 
minded. 

We  may  further  designate  this  type  of  individual 
by  saying  that  he  has  the  mentality  of  a  normal 
child  of  from  three  to  twelve  years  of  age.  These  age 
limits  have  been  determined  by  examining  thousands 
of  the  inmates  of  institutions  for  the  feeble-minded 
and  comparing  with  normal  children.  The  inmates 
of  the  institutions  are  there  because  they  were  not 
capable  of  managing  their  own  aflFairs  with  ordinary 
prudence,  because  society  has  discovered  that  they 
could  not  take  care  of  themselves ;  they  are  weak- 
minded  ;  they  must  be  cared  for  by  the  public.  Care- 
ful examination  of  such  persons  as  have  been  deter- 
mined by  experience  to  be  incapable  of  managing 
themselves  shows  that  they  range  in  intelligence,  as 
before  stated,  from  three  to  twelve  years.  There  are 
practically  none  in  these  institutions  that  have  a  men- 
tality above  twelve.    Those  under  three  are  called  idiots. 


THE   CASE  OF  JEAN  GIANINI  13 

Considered  from  the  standpoint  of  the  growth  and 
the  development  of  the  child,  we  say  that  the  imbecile 
is  a  case  of  arrested  development ;  he  has  stopped 
growing  mentally,  and  has  stopped  previous  to  the 
age  of  twelve,  so  that  no  matter  what  may  be  his 
actual  age  his  mentality  is  that  of  a  child  under  twelve 
years. 

In  the  case  of  Jean  Gianini,  although  he  is  sixteen  years 
old,  he  has  only  the  mentality  of  a  child  of  ten.  Or, 
if  a  possible  error  of  two  years  were  allowed,  he  would 
still  have  only  the  mentality  of  twelve  and  would  be 
an  imbecile.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  probably 
nothing  in  the  whole  career  and  history  of  Jean  Gianini 
that  is  inconsistent  with  a  mentality  under  twelve ; 
and  on  the  other  hand  there  are  numbers  of  things  in 
evidence  in  connection  with  his  crime  that  are  so 
thoroughly  typical  of  high-grade  imbeciles  that  any  one 
with  experience  with  this  type  of  person  can  have  no 
doubt  about  it ;  but  it  is  our  purpose  to  show  this  by  an 
analysis  of  the  case.  We  must  first  attempt  to  remove 
some  of  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  this  view. 

First,  why  does  it  seem  absurd  to  call  Jean  Gianini 
an  imbecile .?  Mainly  because  in  the  popular  mind  the 
term  imbecile  connotes  only  the  low-grade  imbecile,  the 
person  who  shows  in  every  movement  and  action,  if  not 


14  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

in  his  very  face,  that  he  is  "lacking,"  is  "not  all  there," 
is  "not  quite  right,"  or  whatever  may  be  the  expression 
that  we  apply  to  those  unfortunate  ones,  of  whom  there 
are,  sad  to  say,  always  one  or  more  in  every  community. 

Jean  Gianini  is  not  of  that  type ;  he  is  a  high-grade 
imbecile ;  he  is  of  the  grade  that  is  only  recognized  by 
those  who  are  intimately  familiar  with  imbeciles  of  all 
types.  He  is  only  discovered  when  we  make  a  close 
comparison  between  him  and  normal  boys  of  the  va- 
rious ages.  We  may  perhaps  liken  it  to  the  question 
of  tuberculosis  :  the  average  man  never  recognizes  a 
fellow  being  as  suffering  from  consumption  until  he 
is  afflicted  with  a  cough  which  does  not  yield  to  treat- 
ment, is  constantly  expectorating,  gets  thin  and  pale, 
and  has  other  marked  outward  symptoms  ;  the  average 
person  would  not  find  more  than  one  or  two  consump- 
tives among  a  hundred  persons ;  the  expert  physician, 
however,  experienced  with  tuberculosis,  recognizes  many 
more  by  signs  and  symptoms  which  he  can  describe 
with  great  accuracy,  and  when  he  is  allowed  to  apply 
his  physiological  tests  and  his  clinical  thermometer 
and  his  microscope,  the  number  increases  enormously, 
and  he  assures  us  that  every  seventh  person  will  die 
of  tuberculosis. 

It  is  hard  then  for  many  people  to  accept  the  ver- 


THE   CASE  OF  JEAN  GIANINI  15 

diet  that  Jean  Glanini  is  an  imbeeile,  largely  because 
they  do  not  realize  what  a  high-grade  imbecile  is. 
A  second  reason  is  found  in  the  fact  that  we  insist 
*  upon  believing  the  unbelievable.  We  view  a  crime  like 
the  one  under  discussion  and  say  frankly,  "It  is  un- 
believable that  any  reasoning,  intelligent  person  could 
commit  such  an  atrocious  act,"  and  yet  we  believe 
that  this  boy  did ;  we  believe  that  such  a  grade  of 
villainy  exists  and  that  it  can  suddenly  appear  in  a 
boy  who  never  before  manifested  anything  approaching 
it.  The  fact  is,  that  our  instinctive  revulsion  against 
such  a  thought  Is  the  correct  view.  The  fact  that  Jean 
Glanini  committed  such  a  crime  is  itself  the  strongest 
kind  of  evidence  that  he  is  not  a  normal  boy.  But 
turning  from  imbecility  in  the  abstract,  let  us  examine 
concrete  instances  in  the  life  of  Jean  Gianini,  for  we 
shall  find  there  the  best  possible  illustrations  of  the 
characteristics  of  an  imbecile. 

We  may  begin  at  the  most  dramatic  point  —  the 
crime  itself.  Since  we  know  practically  nothing  of 
the  crime  except  through  his  admissions,  we  will  begin 
with  the  confession.  And  first,  why  was  there  a  con- 
fession ^  It  is  safe  to  say  that  there  is  not  a  sensible 
man  or  boy  the  country  over  who,  knowing  the  facts 
in  the  case,  would  not  say,  "What  a  fool  Jean  was  to 


i6  THE  CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

confess  !"  Nobody  but  an  imbecile  would  have  con- 
fessed under  those  circumstances ;  they  had  no  evi- 
dence against  him,  nor  did  they  pretend  they  had ;  he 
testifies  that  they  told  him  that  they  thought  he  was 
guilty  of  the  crime ;  they  did  not  pretend  that  they 
knew  he  was  guilty ;  there  were  no  third-degree  methods 
used ;  they  had  taken  his  clothing  off  and  examined 
him,  but  they  had  not  found  any  blood  or  any  evidence, 
and  the  clothing  had  only  just  been  removed  when 
Jean  began  to  tell  his  story.  He  had  not  been  promised 
any  immunity  if  he  should  confess  ;  in  fact,  he  had  been 
told  that  anything  that  he  said  would  be  used  against 
him,  but  still  he  persisted  in  telling  the  whole  story. 
But  we  do  not  have  to  rely  upon  the  fact  that  it  looks 
foolish  to  us  for  him  to  have  confessed,  because  we 
have  the  fact,  well  known  to  all  who  have  to  deal  with 
imbeciles,  that  it  is  characteristic  of  them  to  do  just 
this  thing.  They  do  not  always  confess,  it  is  true. 
It  seems  to  depend  largely  upon  how  proud  they  are  of 
their  deeds  —  and  frequently  the  more  atrocious  these 
are,  the  prouder  they  are  of  them.  It  is  perfectly  clear 
that  such  was  the  case  with  Jean.  He  made  some  little 
attempt  to  get  away,  at  least  he  made  what  appeared 
like  an  attempt  to  get  away ;  there  really  is  no  evidence 
that  he  was  doing  anything  more  than  he  had  done  many 


THE   CASE   OF  JEAN  GIANINI  17 

times  before,  going  away  from  home  to  seek  work  else- 
where, with  that  wanderlust  which  is  also  characteristic 
of  imbeciles.  He  walked  down  the  railroad  track  to- 
ward Newport,  not  going  very  fast,  not  taking  any 
precautions  to  avoid  being  seen,  and  when  met  by  some 
one  whom  he  knew,  he  came  willingly  back  to  Poland. 
There  is  the  highest  probability,  perfectly  clear  to 
one  who  understands  imbeciles,  that  almost  from  the 
time  the  deed  was  done  he  had  a  strong  desire  to  tell 
somebody  about  it,  to  brag  about  it ;  but  a  certain  in- 
stinct, a  certain  feeling  that  he  ought  not  to  be  caught, 
probably  held  him  back.  But  when  at  last  he  was 
taken  back  to  Poland  and  into  the  presence  of  the 
Deputy  Sheriif ;  when  his  clothes  had  been  removed  and 
he  thought  his  story  would  get  into  the  papers  and  he 
would  become  notorious ;  then  he  began  to  talk.  In 
spite  of  all  the  warnings  and  declarations  that  he  would 
suffer  for  it,  he  talked.  At  this  point  it  is  important 
to  remember  that  he  is  talking  now  to  be  heard ;  he 
is  not  confessing  in  order  to  escape  punishment,  he  is 
talking  because  he  is  proud  of  what  he  has  done ;  he 
wants  to  boast,  wants  to  be  talked  about  and  written 
up,  wants  to  be  notorious,  a  great  criminal,  as  is  evi- 
denced in  the  course  of  the  trial.  Remembering  this, 
we  cannot  believe  all  that  he  says  in  his  confession. 


i8  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

As  already  stated,  in  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  basal 
facts  of  the  crime,  it  is  undoubtedly  true ;  but  when  it 
comes  to  the  finer  details  of  what  he  did,  how  he  pre- 
pared, and  what  he  claimed  was  his  motive,  we  greatly 
err  if  we  accept  everything  he  said.  It  is  not  in  the 
sworn  confession,  but  it  was  in  evidence  that  he  said  he 
sharpened  the  knife  for  the  purpose ;  the  fact  that  he 
said  he  sharpened  the  knife  for  the  purpose  should  have 
no  weight.  It  is  precisely  the  kind  of  thing  that  he 
would  put  in  for  effect.  In  fact  all  that  he  said  after 
the  deed  as  to  arrangements  or  plans  or  details  must 
ever  be  questioned  unless  his  statements  can  in  some 
way  be  corroborated,  for  this  tendency  to  elaborate 
is  so  strong  that  there  is  no  possibility  of  putting  any 
trust  in  his  words. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  whereas  the  defense  intro- 
duced many  witnesses  who  testified  to  Jean's  sayings 
and  actions  that  showed  silliness  and  indicated  childish 
intelligence,  the  prosecution  neither  rebutted  this  nor 
produced  witnesses  testifying  to  anything  in  his  previous 
conduct  that  gave  evidence  of  good  judgment  or  in- 
telligence appropriate  to  his  years,  or  that  he  had  any 
moral  development  that  would  be  normal  for  his  age.-^ 

The  evidences  of  his  pride  in  the  deed  are  scattered 

^See  prosecution's  hypothetical  question  —  Appendix,  pp.  131-138. 


THE   CASE  OF  JEAN  GIANINI  19 

throughout  the  testimony.  For  example,  at  one  time  he 
said,  referring  to  the  deed,  "You  would  not  think  any- 
body could  do  a  deed  like  that  so  quick,  would  you?" 
When  asked  how  he  could  get  Miss  Beecher  to  go  so 
far  up  the  hill  in  the  dark  with  him,  he  replied  with  a 
good  deal  of  pride  :  "That's  easy !  I  told  her  my  father 
was  building  a  house  up  on  the  hill  and  we  went  up 
there." 

This  leads  us  to  another  precaution  which  must  be 
borne  in  mind  in  considering  this  case.  If  Jean  is  an 
imbecile,  then  all  our  previous  conceptions  must  be 
changed,  since  the  conclusions  that  we  naturally  draw 
are  based  on  the  assumption  that  these  facts  relate  to  a 
normal  man.  To  illustrate  :  if  Jean  were  a  normal  boy 
of  sixteen,  the  fact  that  he  inquired  as  to  the  time  of 
Lida  Beecher's  being  at  the  Post  Office,  that  he  talked 
with  her  the  day  before  about  her  promise  to  go  with 
him  to  see  his  father,  the  fact  that  he  went  off  with  her 
that  night,  that  when  he  reached  his  father's  house,  he 
lied  and  said  his  father  lived  up  over  the  hill  and  led 
her  up  there,  and  then,  as  he  said,  struck  her  with  the 
monkey  wrench,  and  so  on,  would  all  indicate  premedi- 
tation and  planning  and  forethought ;  but  the  instant 
we  conclude  that  Jean  is  an  imbecile,  then  these  facts  in- 
dicate nothing  of  the  kind.     It  is  not  denied  that  such 


20  THE  CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

may  have  been  the  case,  or  that  it  is  impossible  for  an 
imbecile  to  carry  out  such  a  plan.  But  it  is  claimed 
that  there  is  no  strong  presumption  that  such  was  the 
fact,  because  the  result  can  be  accounted  for  in  another 
way.  Jean  being  an  imbecile,  it  is  entirely  possible  that 
he  had  no  premeditation  of  murder  at  all,  that  he  not  only 
did  not  grind  that  knife  for  the  purpose,  but  that  he  did 
not  have  the  monkey  wrench  in  his  pocket  for  the  pur- 
pose. On  the  contrary,  it  is  possible  that  as  he  walked 
up  the  hill  with  Lida  Beecher  he  had  no  more  thought 
of  killing  her  than  of  committing  suicide.  Indeed,  it 
is  much  more  plausible  from  all  we  know  of  imbeciles, 
and  of  boys  of  his  physical  development,  that  there  was 
an  entirely  different  purpose.  That  purpose  was  prob- 
ably sexual.  The  writer  is  not  alone  in  this  thought. 
Hardly  any  of  the  persons  with  whom  he  has  talked  of 
this  crime  has  failed  to  ask  the  question,  "Was  there 
any  sexual  offense  in  the  matter  .f*"  The  absence  of 
any  evidence  of  assault  of  this  character  has  been  a 
surprise  to  many  persons ;  but  it  again  is  no  surprise 
when  we  remember  that  Jean  is  an  imbecile ;  we  know 
also  that  he  is  a  masturbator. 

While  the  writer  has  no  theory  to  put  forth  in  regard 
to  this  crime,  yet,  for  the  sake  of  clearness  and  as  an 
illustration  of  the  imbecile  type,  let  us  assume  a  plausi- 


THE  CASE  OF  JEAN  GIANINI  21 

ble  hypothesis  ;  that  is  to  say,  an  hypothesis  which  may 
fit  the  case  and  is  entirely  plausible  from  the  standpoint 
of  imbecility. 

Jean  was  sixteen  years  old,  an  age  when  sexual  passion 
is  strong.  It  is  the  middle  of  the  great  adolescent 
period.  The  new  physiological  function  of  sex  is 
established,  great  psychic  changes  have  occurred.  The 
boy  is  dreaming  dreams,  the  imagination  is  active.  In 
the  normal  boy  this  means  the  evolution  of  ideals, 
ambitions,  moral  and  religious  ideas,  attention  to  dress 
and  appearance,  interest  in  the  opposite  sex.  In  the 
case  of  the  morally  well-endowed  boy,  the  sex  impulses 
which  have  strengthened  with  the  development  of  the 
physical  potency  find  their  outlet  in  a  kind  of  vicarious 
functioning  in  the  shape  of  polite  and  friendly  associa- 
tion with  his  girl  friends,  in  chivalric  attentions  and 
devotions,  with  more  or  less  definite  plans  for  future 
marriage  and  parenthood.  In  those  with  little  or  no 
moral  principle  we  see  the  impulse  leaping  over  the 
social  conventions  and  attaining  complete  sexual  grati- 
fication illegally. 

With  the  imbecile  the  case  is  different.  The  fires 
of  sexual  passion  may  burn  as  vigorously  as  in  the  better 
endowed,  but  he  lacks  both  the  power  of  control  and 
the    courage    and    ingenuity    to    overcome    the    social 


22  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

barriers.  He  masturbates.  This  banks  the  fires  some- 
what and  requires  no  courage.  If  stimulated  by  asso- 
ciation with  girls,  he  makes  crude  and  imbecilic  plans 
for  conquest.  Lacking  moral  development  and  igno- 
rant of  the  more  subtle  means  of  accomplishing  his  pur- 
pose, he  may  resort  to  violence  in  some  one  of  the  many 
possible  ways.  Often  he  is  not  conscious  of  what  it  is 
that  is  driving  him  and  hence  does  not  know  where 
satisfaction  lies.  Under  these  conditions  his  violence 
may  show  no  outward  signs  of  being  sexual.  It  may 
show  every  degree  from  rough  horseplay  with  girls, 
such  as  pushing,  pulling,  grabbing  hat,  cloak,  or  other 
articles  of  dress,  bantering,  teasing,  and  other  forms  of 
personal  contact,  up  to  physical  injury,  torture,  and 
even  murder. 

Volumes  could  be  written  —  indeed  volumes  have 
been  written  —  showing  the  tremendous  force  of  this 
sex  impulse  at  this  age,  and  the  multifarious  ways  in 
which  it  expresses  itself  —  many  of  them  not  showing 
any  of  the  signs  that  are  usually  considered  as  indicating 
a  sexual  disturbance.  That  is  to  say,  such  acts  are,  by 
the  uninitiated,  not  considered  sex  acts  at  all.  One 
incident  of  this  kind  is  in  evidence.  "At  one  time  Jean 
took  two  little  girls  to  a  piece  of  woods  and  started  to 
take  their  clothes  off,  and  when  asked  why  he  did  it. 


THE   CASE  OF  JEAN  GIANINI  23 

said  he  was  going  to  play  Indian  and  that  Indians  were 
naked."  Dismissing  the  possibility  that  his  explana- 
tion was  invented  to  conceal  a  definitely  conscious 
sexual  impulse,  let  us  admit  that  he  gave  his  real 
reason  for  the  act.  Still  it  is  clear  to  all  who  are  familiar 
with  sex  psychology  that  the  subconscious  reason  for 
playing  Indian  in  that  way  was  a  sexual  one.  The 
procedure  also  shows  a  lack  of  judgment  and  apprecia- 
tion of  the  proprieties  which  argues  strongly  for  mental 
deficiency  —  especially  as  he  was  then  between  ten 
and  twelve  years  old.  (For  further  items  the  reader  is 
referred  to  pp.  1 13-120  of  the  Appendix,  where  the 
hypothetical  questions  have  summed  up  the  testimony.) 
The  imbecile  is  a  coward.  Jean  Gianini  is  an  im- 
becile. Unconsciously  impelled  by  that  strong  in- 
stinct he  seeks  the  company  of  Lida  Beecher.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  her  friend.  Miss  Clark,  testified  that  Miss 
Beecher  had  been  annoyed  at  his  attentions.  He 
contrives  an  excuse  to  get  her  to  come  up  to  his  house ; 
when  he  reaches  the  house,  he  makes  another  ex- 
cuse to  get  her  to  go  farther,  not,  as  generally  be- 
lieved, with  the  purpose  of  murdering  her;  perhaps 
only  blindly  following  that  instinct  of  sex  and  desiring 
to  be  in  her  company ;  more  probably  with  the  half- 
conscious  purpose  of  satisfying  his  passion  If  he  could 


24  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

find  a  suitable  opportunity.  They  walk  on  ;  where  they 
were  going  or  how  far  they  would  have  walked  no  one 
will  ever  know,  but  there  came  a  time  when  for  some 
reason  her  suspicions  were  aroused,  or  at  least  her 
common  sense  told  her  that  it  was  foolish  to  go  farther. 
Of  course  we  have  nothing  but  Jean's  statement,  which 
may  be  true  or  may  be  false ;  instead  of  the  simple 
statement  that  she  thought  she  would  go  back  as  she  saw 
no  light,  there  may,  for  all  we  know,  have  been  a  strong 
argument ;  he  may  have  made  improper  proposals  which 
she  resented ;  this  led  to  blows  with  the  fatal  result. 
We  have  no  means  of  knowing  what  actually  took 
place  at  that  spot.  But  even  taking  Jean's  own  ac- 
count, when  she  remarked  that  "she  thought  she  would 
not  go  any  further,"  he  saw  that  his  plan  was  frus- 
trated. Then  he  struck  her  with  the  monkey  wrench 
which  he  happened  to  have  in  his  pocket  —  for  what 
purpose  no  one  knows.  Having  struck  her  once, 
it  was  easy  to  strike  the  second  and  the  third  time. 
It  was  only  natural  for  an  imbecile  to  keep  at  it,  — 
"finish  the  job"  as  he  expressed  it.  According  to 
the  evidence  he  struck  her  with  the  knife  approxi- 
mately twenty-four  times,  finally  hitting  the  jugular 
vein  in  the  neck,  as  a  result  of  which  she  probably  bled 
to  death. 


THE   CASE   OF  JEAN   GIANINI  25 

As  already  stated,  the  writer  has  no  desire  to  advance 
this  as  the  theory  of  the  deed.  But  if  Jean  is  an  imbecile, 
this  theory  is  fully  as  good  as  that  upon  which  the 
prosecution  worked,  and  it  eliminates  entirely  all 
necessity  for  elaborate  planning.  Up  to  this  point 
we  have  shown  that  the  fact  of  a  confession  and  the 
character  of  the  confession,  both  difficult  to  explain 
on  the  basis  that  Jean  is  a  normal  boy  of  sixteen,  are 
entirely  clear  and  perfectly  characteristic  of  a  high- 
grade  imbecile. 

Let  us  look  now  at  his  actions  immediately  after 
the  deed.  It  is  in  evidence  that  Jean  said  he  took  the 
murdered  girl  by  the  foot  because  there  was  no  blood 
there  and  he  did  not  want  to  get  blood  on  his  hands 
for  fear  they  would  take  his  finger  prints.  Holding 
her  by  the  foot,  he  dragged  her  out  of  the  road  behind 
some  bushes  and  left  her  in  the  snow.  He  then  went 
back  into  the  road,  making  new  tracks,  which  he  made 
no  effort  to  cover.  Nor  did  he  make  any  effort  to 
cover  the  old  tracks  or  the  blood  spots  that  were  left 
along  in  the  snow.  Neither  did  he  make  any  attempt 
to  hide  the  hat  nor  the  umbrella  nor  the  broken  comb 
which  were  left  in  the  road ;  his  care  to  take  her  by 
the  foot  where  there  was  no  blood  is  cited  as  evidence 
of  forethought  and  judgment ;  but  what  shall  we  say 


26  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

of  his  failure  to  cover  up  his  tracks  when  it  was  easy  to 
have  done  so ! 

Again  we  must  remind  the  reader  that  we  have 
nothing  but  the  boy's  testimony  as  to  the  fact  that  he 
took  her  by  the  foot  or  to  explain  why  he  took  her  by 
the  foot,  but  in  accepting  his  testimony  as  true  there  is 
nothing  incompatible  with  high-grade  imbecility. 

The  one  peculiar  thing  about  Jean  is  that  he  has  read 
more  than  most  imbeciles  even  of  this  high  grade.  But 
this  peculiarity  does  not  save  him  from  being  an  im- 
becile, since  there  are  cases  of  imbeciles  who  have 
read  as  much  or  even  more  than  he.  Furthermore, 
there  is  plenty  of  evidence  in  the  case  that  Jean's  in- 
terest in  reading  has  gone  along  the  line,  childlike,  of 
crime.  The  various  experts  who  examined  him  told 
of  his  talking  about  the  case  of  the  New  York  gunmen, 
of  the  Pomeroy  case,  of  a  murder  in  the  South,  and 
possibly  others.  He  inquired  about  Mahoney,  the 
would-be  assassin  of  Mayor  Mitchell.  In  connection 
with  these  crimes  his  reading  of  finger  prints  had  made 
the  same  impression  upon  him  that  it  would  have  upon 
any  boy.  He  remembered  what  he  had  read  and  per- 
haps acted  upon  it,  at  least  talked  about  it  when  the 
opportunity  came,  and  pretended  that  he  considered  it 
in  his  action. 


THE   CASE  OF  JEAN  GIANINI  27 

It  needs  no  argument  to  show  that  all  the  rest  of  his 
conduct  in  leaving  things  as  he  did  was  imbecilic. 
Even  many  a  high-grade  imbecile  would  have  been 
much  more  thoughtful  and  more  careful  to  cover  up 
the  tracks  in  the  snow.  That  Jean  did  not  do  so  is  in 
itself  almost  an  unanswerable  argument  that  he  was 
an  imbecile. 

He  then  went  home,  and  having  washed  the  knife  in 
the  snow,  put  it  in  the  pantry  drawer.  No  evidence  was 
produced,  so  far  as  the  writer  knows,  to  prove  that  this 
was  the  fact ;  we  do  not  know  whether  the  knife  belonged 
in  the  pantry  drawer  and  he  put  it  back,  or  whether 
it  belonged  in  his  pocket  and  when  he  was  through, 
he  put  it  back  in  his  pocket  or  put  it  somewhere  else. 
Again,  assuming  that  he  told  the  truth,  he  certainly  ran 
the  risk  of  being  questioned  as  to  what  he  had  been 
doing  with  the  knife.  He  then  went  on  an  errand,  and, 
according  to  his  statement,  went  down  to  the  railroad, 
hoping  to  jump  a  freight  train.  When  he  found  the 
freight  had  gone,  he  hurried  back  home.  These  actions 
according  to  the  prosecution  indicate  careful  planning 
and  a  desire  to  get  away ;  realizing  the  enormity  of  his 
deed  he  wanted  to  get  out  of  town.  Surely  no  normal 
youth  of  sixteen  would  have  failed  to  get  out  of  town 
even  though  he  had  missed  the  freight  train ;  but  his 


28  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

conduct  Is  perfectly  characteristic  of  an  imbecile.  One 
simple  thought  having  failed  to  materialize,  without 
planning  further  he  goes  back  home,  acts  as  no  one  but 
an  imbecile  could  under  such  circumstances, — goes  to 
bed,  sleeps  soundly,  gets  up  the  next  morning,  and  goes 
to  work.  Then  he  makes  another  effort  to  get  away. 
But  how  crude  an  effort  it  is.  He  walks  quietly  along 
the  railroad  track  and,  as  already  stated,  makes  no 
attempt  to  hide,  but  passes  the  trackman  and  goes  into 
the  station  at  Newport.  When  he  meets  a  person 
from  his  own  town,  comes  promptly  and  quietly  back 
home.  Surely  an  act  much  more  befitting  an  imbecile 
than  a  normal  boy  of  sixteen  ! 

The  writer  was  asked  upon  the  stand  whether  these 
incidents  indicated  to  his  mind  that  Jean  had  intelli- 
gence and  had  planned  this  thing  carefully.  The 
answer  was  emphatically,  "No."  At  every  turn  they 
indicate  an  imbecile.  We  could  cite  many  instances 
of  imbeciles  in  our  institutions  who  have  done  things 
of  exactly  the  same  character.  Our  high-grade  boys 
frequently  plan  to  run  away,  and  often  their  plans  are 
much  more  elaborately  conceived  and  much  better 
carried  out  than  Jean's  was. 

In  speaking  of  the  confession  it  may  be  noted  also 
that  not  infrequently  our  boys  when  they  have  made  a 


THE   CASE  OF  JEAN  GIANINI  29 

plan  to  run  away  cannot  keep  It  until  they  can  carry  it 
out,  but  make  a  confession.  They  go  to  some  attend- 
ant or  officer  and,  without  any  compulsion,  actually 
tell  of  their  plan.  In  this  way  a  great  many  times  their 
purposes  are  frustrated.  When  two  boys  plan  to  run 
away,  it  is  rare  Indeed  if  they  carry  out  their  scheme ; 
It  is  almost  certain  that  one  of  them  will  confess  to 
somebody. 

Jean  manifested  throughout  that  love  of  display  and 
notoriety,  that  longing  to  be  the  center  of  observation 
and  talk,  which  Is  so  characteristic  of  Imbeciles.  He 
asked  the  alienists  who  were  examining  him  if  his  picture 
would  be  in  the  paper  and  what  the  people  were  saying 
about  him.  According  to  the  testimony  of  the  experts 
who  examined  him  In  jail,  every  occasion  on  which  he 
was  examined  was  regarded  by  Jean  with  pleasure, 
and  his  only  thought  apparently  was  that  he  was  the  cen- 
ter of  observation.  Instead  of  showing  some  realization 
of  his  crime  and  that  he  was  exerting  himself  to  make 
an  appearance  that  would  be  favorable  to  his  case,  all 
the  evidence  was  of  the  opposite  character.  None  of 
the  witnesses  for  the  prosecution  were  able  to  hide  the 
fact  that  he  was  light-hearted  and  frivolous,  and.  In  a 
word,  "showing  off,"  throughout  these  various  ex- 
aminations. 


30  THE   CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

Throughout  the  whole  time  of  the  writer's  examination 
of  him  Jean  never  for  one  moment  evidenced  by  word  or 
action  any  thought  as  to  how  his  conduct  or  his  answers 
to  questions  would  affect  his  case.  As  was  pointed  out 
by  the  defense,  quite  in  keeping  with  his  mentality  was 
his  statement  to  the  experts  employed  by  the  prosecu- 
tion, that  he  had  been  told  not  to  talk,  in  spite  of  which 
he  talked  incessantly  and  told  everything  that  they 
wanted.  The  fact  of  the  matter  was  that  his  desire  to 
show  off  so  far  overcame  any  thought  of  self-preservation 
that  he  talked  and  acted  freely  in  spite  of  his  lawyer's 
caution  that  he  should  not  answer  questions.  His 
conduct  in  the  court  room  throughout  the  trial  was  that 
of  an  imbecile,  of  a  child,  who  had  no  realization  of  the 
predicament  that  he  was  in  and  no  purpose  to  make  a 
good  appearance.  He  was  in  the  limelight  and  he 
enjoyed  it.  Even  when  the  most  gruesome  details  of 
his  deed  were  being  recited,  he  evidenced  no  feeling  of 
horror  or  sorrow  or  fear;  on  the  contrary  he  was  in- 
different, and  frequently  even  laughed  at  the  incidents 
that  were  related.  He  showed  no  excitement  after 
he  got  home  that  evening;  he  slept  well.  His  only 
comment  on  his  prison  cell,  which  to  a  normal  person 
would  have  been  loathsome  in  the  extreme,  was  that 
it  was  better  than  St.  Vincent's,  where  he  had  been  at 


THE   CASE  OF  JEAN  GIANINI  31 

school.  Even  when  the  experts  introduced  by  his  own 
counsel  were  examining  him,  and  when,  had  he  been 
intelligent,  he  should  have  known  that  it  was  to  his 
advantage  to  make  the  best  possible  appearance,  to 
give  them  every  possible  help,  yet  when  his  dinner  was 
brought  into  his  cell,  he  could  think  of  nothing  but 
eating  and  ignored  the  people  who  had  been  sent  to 
help  him.  As  one  of  the  experts  testified,  "As  between 
soup  and  safety,  Jean  prefers  soup." 

These  facts  and  circumstances  alone  are  enough  to 
satisfy  any  person  who  is  familiar  with  the  character 
of  the  inmates  of  our  institutions  for  the  feeble-minded 
that  Jean  was  an  imbecile  and  really  belonged  in  an 
institution.  But  besides  these  circumstances  several 
witnesses  were  introduced  who  testified  to  the  curious 
and  childish  actions  of  Jean  in  his  past  history.  Quite 
recently,  he  had  tried  to  catch  pigeons  by  putting 
salt  on  their  tails.  The  prosecuting  attorney  called 
attention  to  the  fact  that  almost  every  man  remembers 
going  through  the  same  experience,  but  it  may  be  safely 
asserted  that  this  is  not  done  by  any  normal  boy 
after  the  age  of  twelve.  It  is  a  childish  act,  and  in- 
dicates a  mentality  of  less  than  eleven. 

Peter  Black,  the  village  blacksmith,  testified  that 
some  one  sent  Jean  to  him  one  day  for  "strap  oil"; 


32  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

that  he  carried  out  the  joke  by  slapping  Jean  with  a 
strap,  but  was  unable  to  make  him  see  that  the  whole 
thing  was  a  joke.  He  teased  and  bullied  the  other 
children  in  a  way  that  is  characteristic  of  the  high- 
grade  imbecile.  Mrs.  Anna  Newman  testified  that  he 
was  a  restless  boy,  and  that  sometimes  he  would  answer 
her  questions  and  sometimes  not.  Every  superin- 
tendent of  an  institution  for  the  feeble-minded  would 
instantly  recognize  these  characteristics  as  common 
among  his  inmates.  The  reader  will  find  more  of 
these  incidents  in  the  Appendix,  pp.  113-119. 

One  of  the  unique  features,  so  far  as  court  procedure 
is  concerned,  was  the  introduction  into  the  case,  of 
examinations  by  means  of  the  Binet-Simon  Measuring 
Scale  of  Intelligence.  The  writer's  examination  of 
Jean  consisted  largely  of  the  use  of  these  tests,  and  as 
a  result  he  estimated  his  mentality  at  approximately 
ten  years  of  age.  It  was  somewhat  difiicult  to  estimate  ^ 
his  mentality  with  the  usual  exactness  since  others  had 
already  used  the  tests,  and  it  was  impossible  to  say  how 
much  Jean  had  learned  from  his  previous  examinations. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  some  cases  at  least,  he  had  not 
profited  by  the  experiences  which  should  have  helped 
him  greatly  had  he  been  a  normal  boy.  For  example, 
one  of  the  tests  is  to  draw  from  memory  a  diagram  which 


THE   CASE  OF  JEAN  GIANINI  33 

he  has  been  allowed  to  study  for  ten  seconds.  It  is  clear 
that  if  one  were  given  this  test  two  or  three  times,  at 
the  last  trial  he  should  have  a  pretty  good  idea  of  it 
and  be  able  to  draw  it  correctly.  Although  the  writer's 
use  of  this  test  was  in  the  last  of  the  series  of  those  who 
tested  him,  yet  he  did  not  succeed  in  drawing  it.  This 
is  usually  drawn  by  a  child  of  ten  years.  When  asked 
to  repeat  a  certain  sentence,  he  replied,  "Oh,  I  have 
been  asked  that  a  hundred  times."  But  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  he  had  heard  it  several  times  he  failed 
to  remember  it,  and  yet  this  sentence  is  generally  re- 
membered by  a  child  of  twelve. 

This  is  not  the  place  nor  is  it  necessary  to  discuss  the 
Binet  tests  themselves.  A  word,  however,  may  be 
said  as  to  why  the  experts  for  the  prosecution  did  not 
get  the  same  results  with  the  tests  that  those  of  the 
defense  obtained.  Also  it  seems  necessary  to  make  a 
brief  explanation,  since  the  prosecuting  attorney  failed, 
so  markedly  to  understand  the  tests  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  he  had  had  the  instruction  of  one  of  his  own  ex- 
perts who  used  them.  One  of  the  prosecution's  ex- 
perts told  the  writer  that  he  did  not  ask  Jean  any 
questions  except  those  in  the  twelve-year  list,  and  he 
"seemed  to  do  those  satisfactorily."  There  are  two 
sources   of   error   in   this.     In   the   first   place,   Jean's 


34  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

failures  were  not  only  in  the  twelve-year,  but  in  the 
eleven  and  ten.  Secondly,  if  Jean  seemed  to  do  the 
twelve-year  tests  correctly,  it  could  only  have  been 
because  they  were  wrongly  used.  The  Binet  Scale  is 
not,  as  the  prosecutor  insisted  on  stating,  an  "arbitrary 
system."  It  is  not  a  set  of  questions  to  which  there 
are  definite  and  fixed  answers  that  are  correct,  and 
from  which  any  deviation  is  marked  a  failure.  Nor  is 
it  a  set  of  questions  the  answers  to  which  can  be  judged 
as  to  their  correctness  by  the  so-called  "common  sense" 
of  the  investigator.  To  illustrate  :  Jean  was  asked  to 
give  the  definition  of  the  word  "charity";  he  said, 
"Charity  is  giving."  The  prosecuting  attorney  in- 
sisted that  this  was  a  correct  answer,  because,  as  he 
said,  "Charity  is  giving."  This  is  mere  sophistry. 
It  is  not  a  question  as  to  whether  "charity  is  giving" 
is  a  theoretically  correct  answer  to  the  question  ;  the 
important  point  is,  that  such  an  answer  is  not  the  kind 
of  answer  that  is  given  by  twelve-year-old  children.  This 
has  been  proved  by  asking  hundreds  of  twelve-year-old 
children  to  define  "charity."  Practically  75  per  cent 
of  such  children  include  not  only  the  idea  of  giving,  but 
the  other  necessary  idea  of  giving  to  some  one  who  is 
in  need.  The  answer,  "Charity  is  giving,"  is  character- 
istic not  of  twelve-year  mentality,  but  of  something 


THE  CASE  OF  JEAN  GIANINI  35 

under  that,  —  ten  or  less.  So  throughout  the  system 
the  scale  must  not  be  judged  by  what  seem  correct  or  in- 
correct answers  to  the  inexperienced  adult.  The  value 
of  an  answer  can  only  be  known  by  knowing  the  char- 
acter of  answers  that  are  given  by  children  of  the 
various  ages.  The  point  is  not  always  that  this  answer 
is  or  is  not  technically  correct,  but  that  it  is  not  the 
kind  of  answer  which  a  child  of  the  specified  age  should 
give.  Therefore,  it  indicates  that  he  is  not  of  that  age, 
but  below  it.  This  was  the  error  into  which  the 
prosecutor  and  his  alienists  had  fallen  in  their  use  of 
the  tests  in  the  case  of  Jean  Gianini. 

Jean's  school  record  was  the  serious  stumblingblock 
to  many  persons  who,  from  the  facts,  notably  those 
already  cited,  were  inclined  to  think  that  possibly  he 
was  an  imbecile.  To  many  of  these  persons  that 
record  seemed  to  indicate  a  normal  boy.  The  teach- 
ers and  the  principal  testified  that  he  did  his  work 
well  through  the  fifth  grade  and  got  excellent  marks, 
even  getting  100  per  cent  in  some  studies.  They  lost 
sight,  however,  of  the  fact  that  Jean  was  fourteen  or 
fifteen  years  of  age  and  in  a  grade  which  he  should 
have  been  in  at  eleven,  namely,  the  fifth. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Jean's  school  experience,  when 
taken  as  a  whole,  is  most  confirmatory  of  his  imbecile 


36  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

grade.  It  was  proved  in  court,  but  not  fully  appreci- 
ated, that  Jean  got  along  well  through  the  fifth  grade, 
but  when  he  went  into  the  sixth  grade,  he  failed. 

Professor  Robinson  testified  that  when  Jean  was 
transferred  to  Miss  Beecher's  room,  his  troubles  began. 
The  boy  did  not  get  along  nearly  so  well  after  the  change 
and  he  dropped  back  in  his  studies.  His  teacher  was 
obliged  to  report  him  a  number  of  times  to  the  prin- 
cipal, who  twice  whipped  him  with  a  piece  of  rubber 
hose.  Failing  to  make  his  studies  under  the  new 
standard,  he  was  made  to  occupy  a  special  seat  apart 
from  the  other  pupils,  at  the  instance,  if  not  the  actual 
order,  of  Miss  Beecher. 

The  witness  further  testified  that  in  the  last  days  of 
his  school  life  Jean  dropped,  to  a  very  marked  degree,  in 
his  standing  in  his  studies.  This  falling  oflF  in  Jean's 
ability  was  attributed  to  his  teacher.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  falling  off  was  due  to  the  fact  that  Jean  had 
reached  his  limit  in  the  fifth  grade.  He  attained  to 
that  height  because  of  a  good  memory,  which  is  char- 
acteristic of  many  imbeciles  and  is  in  no  way  indicative 
of  normal  intelligence.  It  is  also  very  common  for 
children  of  this  type  to  get  through  the  fifth  grade  and 
fail  in  the  sixth.  They  have  mentality  enough  to  carry 
them  to  that  point,  but  not  farther. 


THE   CASE  OF  JEAN  GIANINI  37 

It  is  a  satisfaction  to  realize  that  Jean's  failure  in 
school  with  Miss  Beecher  is  in  no  way  due  to  the  in- 
efficiency of  his  unfortunate  victim.  It  was  due  simply 
and  solely  to  the  fact  that  Jean  was  an  imbecile  and  had 
reached  his  limit.  These  two  facts  of  a  good  memory 
and  of  good  school  work  in  a  few  school  grades  have 
deceived  many  people  as  to  the  intelligence  of  a  child. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  many  imbeciles  do  not 
show  their  defect  until  at  the  age 'of  eleven  or  twelve 
when  they  are  in  the  fifth  or  sixth  grade. 
'  One  of  the  witnesses  for  the  prosecution  said  that  he 
considered  that  Jean  was  normal  and  that  his  apparent 
backwardness  was  due  to  lack  of  schooling.  This  is  a 
common  error  in  all  such  cases.  If  asked  why  a  boy 
should  be  backward  through  lack  of  schooling  when  he 
has  been  to  school  and  has  had  every  opportunity  to 
learn,  it  is  common  again  to  fall  back  upon  the  idea  that 
he  has  not  studied.  He  has  been  a  wild,  wayward  boy, 
playing  truant,  more  or  less,  and  has  never  applied 
himself,  therefore  he  is  behind  his  grade  and  is  dull  and 
backward.  Again,  while  not  denying  that  there  are 
children  of  perfectly  normal  intelligence  who  seem  to 
be  misfits  in  school  or  who  seem  more  interested  in 
other  things  than  in  their  school  work,  or  children  who 
will  not  study  because  of  dislike  for  the  teacher  or  for 


38  THE  CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

various  other  reasons,  yet  the  reader  must  be  reminded 
that  a  study  of  the  high-grade  defective  shows  that  he 
is  continually  being  confused  with  these  very  excep- 
tional children  who  have  the  ability  but  who  do  not 
study.  In  other  words,  when  a  boy  does  not  get  along  in 
school,  even  though  it  is  evident  that  he  does  not  study, 
the  strong  probability  is  that  he  does  not  study  because 
he  has  not  mind  enough  to  appreciate  the  work,  to 
understand  it,  hence  to  have  that  highest  of  all  incen- 
tives to  work,  success.  The  fact  that  the  majority  of 
boys  do  get  their  lessons  and  get  along  well  in  school 
should  be  a  strong  argument  that  there  is  something 
seriously  wrong  with  those  that  do  not  succeed. 

It  may  further  be  asked :  How  does  the  fact  that 
the  boy  has  not  succeeded  in  school  affect  his  exami- 
nation by  the  Binet  test  ?  Experience  has  shown  that 
the  test  is  affected  but  slightly.  In  other  words,  the 
mind  develops  regardless  of  school  and  school  training. 
As  long  as  we  ask  only  such  questions  as  call  for  a 
general  intelligence  and  do  not  call  for  specific  school 
instruction  we  are  reasonably  independent  of  such 
instruction.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  nearly  all  of  the 
questions  of  the  Binet  Scale  are  free  from  this  objec- 
tion. Some  of  them,  it  is  true,  are  a  little  helped  if  the 
child  has  been  to  school  and  correspondingly  hard  if 


THE  CASE  OF  JEAN  GIANINI  39 

the  child  has  not  been  to  school ;  but,  on  the  whole, 
they  do  not  affect  the  final  rating  to  any  serious  extent. 
This  has  been  proven  repeatedly  by  normal  children 
who,  on  account  of  sickness  or  for  other  reasons,  have 
not  been  to  school,  and  yet  can  pass  the  Binet  tests  for 
;  their  own  age. 

We  must  now  turn  to  the  question  of  cause.  If  we 
can  account  for  Jean  Gianini's  imbecility,  it  will  be 
much  easier  to  believe  in  it.  Much  has  been  written 
on  the  subject  of  the  causes  of  feeble-mindedness. 
Certain  fundamental  principles  have  been  agreed  upon. 
It  is  now  known  that  at  least  66  per  cent  of  feeble- 
mindedness is  hereditary ;  that  is  to  say,  the  individual 
is  feeble-minded  because  he  comes  from  stock  in  which 
feeble-mindedness  exists.  There  is  another  group  in 
which  there  are  practically  no  other  feeble-minded 
persons  in  the  family  or  among  the  ancestors  so  far 
as  can  be  discovered,  but  there  is,  on  the  other  hand, 
a  great  deal  of  bad  physical  history ;  there  may  be 
epilepsy,  alcoholism,  insanity,  or  other  serious  physical 
disturbances.  Finally,  we  have  a  group  in  which  there 
is  history  of  some  accident,  either  to  the  child  at  the 
time  of  birth  or  after  birth,  or  to  the  mother  previous 
to  the  birth  of  the  child. 

In  Jean's  case  we  have  no  history  of  accident  or 


40  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

injury  to  the  child  himself.  The  pedigree  or  family 
tree  has  not  been  worked  up  and  we  do  not  know  what 
there  may  be.  It  was  in  evidence  that  the  grand- 
father was  bom  on  the  south  side  of  the  Alps ;  and 
there  was  some  slight  attempt  to  imply,  since  cre- 
tinism is  very  common  in  that  region,  that  possibly 
there  was  some  cretinous  condition  in  the  family.  All 
this  is  not  impossible;  and  if  it  existed  in  the  grand- 
father or  even  in  the  great-grandfather,  such  a  con- 
dition might  reappear  in  the  grandson  in  the  form  of 
imbecility ;  yet  in  view  of  our  present  knowledge,  or 
rather  our  lack  of  knowledge  on  this  subject,  this  line 
of  argument  is  too  vague  to  enable  us  to  draw  any 
conclusions. 

The  fact  that  the  mother  of  Jean  was  inaane  and 
alcoholic  justly  had  great  weight.  Before  her  first  child 
was  bom  she  broke  down  mentally  and  was  probably 
never  "  right "  after  that  time.  The  first  child  lived  to 
the  age  of  seven  and  from  the  description  was  clearly 
an  idiot.  The  second  child  is  entirely  normal.  Jean, 
who  is  the  third  child,  did  not  talk  until  he  was  five 
years  old. 

Our  general  studies  have  not  yet  gone  far  enough, 
and  certainly  our  study  of  this  particular  family  is  far 
from  sufficient,  to  enable  us  to  decide  whether  this  is  a 


THE  CASE  OF  JEAN  GIANINI  41 

matter  of  heredity  or  whether  we  shall  say  that  Jean's 
condition  as  well  as  that  of  the  first  child  is  traceable 
directly  to  the  mother's  insanity  or  to  her  alcoholism. 

For  the  present  purpose,  of  course,,  it  does  not  matter. 
We  see  in  these  facts,  whether  we  regard  tjiem  as  causes 
or  merely  as  symptoms  of  a  deeper  lying  cause,  suf- 
ficient reason  for  Jean's  being  an  imbecile.  There  is 
every  reason  to  believe  that  Jean  Gianini  is  an  imbecile 
of  high  grade.  The  next  important  question  that 
arises  is  a  legal  one  of  whether,  being  an  imbecile  of 
high  grade,  he  knew  the  nature  and  quality  of  his  act 
and  that  it  was  wrong. 

Before  discussing  this  let  us  consider  two  other 
cases  —  after  which  we  may  discuss  the  general  propo- 
sition of  whether  high-grade  imbeciles  know  right  and 
wrong. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE    CASE    OF    ROLAND    PENNINGTON 

On  November  yth,  191 3,  Lewis  S.  Pinkerton,  the 
manager  of  a  certain  farm  in  Delaware  County,  Penn- 
sylvania, suddenly  disappeared.  As  it  seemed  prob- 
able that  he  was  the  victim  of  foul  play  the  detectives 
set  to  work  and  in  due  time  arrested  George  March, 
the  dairyman  on  the  farm,  and  Roland  Pennington,  a 
farm  laborer.  Suspicion  was  directed  to  these  two 
men  largely  through  the  testimony  of  the  woman  who 
was  supposed  to  be  the  so-called  common-law  wife  of 
March.  At  his  trial  it  was  shown  that  he  had  another 
wife  living,  and  consequently  she  did  not  even  have 
that  as  a  claim  upon  him.  This  woman  had  heard 
groanings  from  the  direction  of  the  barn^  and  later 
when  March  came  into  the  house,  had  noticed  blood 
on  the  towel  and  on  his  clothing. 

The  body  of  the  lost  man  could  not  be  found.  After 
being  taken  to  prison  March  accused  Pennington  of  the 
crime,  admitting  that  after  the  deed  was  done  he  as- 

42 


^    =: 


C^ 


^^ 


THE   CASE  OF   ROLAND   PENNINGTON       43 

sisted  young  Pennington  in  disposing  of  the  body,  be- 
cause, as  he  said,  he  was  afraid  that  he  himself  would 
be  accused  of  the  crime.  Having  made  this  admission, 
he  took  the  officers  to  a  wood  some  miles  away  where 
the  body  had  been  buried  in  a  rude,  shallow  grave. 

When  Pennington  was  confronted  with  March's 
accusation,  he  too  made  a  confession,  which,  however, 
implicated  March  quite  as  much  as  himself. 

March  was  tried  in  Delaware  County,  and  convicted 
of  murder  in  the  first  degree.  The  defense  was,  in 
accordance  with  the  above  statement,  "that  he  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  crime  itself,  merely  assisted  in 
disposing  of  the  body." 

Pennington's  trial  occurred  in  June,  19 14,  when  he 
also  was  convicted  of  murder  in  the  first  degree.  The 
defense  in  this  case  was  imbecility  and  irresponsibility. 
Although  the  jury  did  not  accept  this  view,  the  case  is 
a  most  interesting  one  from  the  standpoint  of  criminal 
imbecility. 

The  story  of  the  crime  is  probably  best  given  in 
Pennington's  own  words,  since  his  confession  has  all 
the  marks  of  truthfulness  and  was  evidently  accepted 
by  the  jury  in  the  March  case.  It  was  almost  exclu- 
sively on  the  strength  of  this  testimony  that  March 
was  convicted. 


44  THE  CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

Statement  of  Roland  Pennington  as  to  the  Pinkerton 

Homicide 

I,  Roland  Pennington,  being  duly  sworn  according 
to  law  depose  as  follows  :  — 

I  went  to  work  at  the  Wilson  farm  about  October 
7th ;  I  boarded  with  George  March  and  his  wife ; 
George  worked  on  the  farm  too ;  he  was  the  butter 
maker ;  from  the  time  I  went  to  the  farm,  George  was 
always  kind  and  good  to  me ;  George  had  charge  over 
me  when  Lew  was  not  there ;  George  would  loan  me 
money  when  I  wanted  any,  and  several  times  took  me 
to  Gradyville  with  him,  when  he  would  take  me  over 
to  the  hotel  and  treat  me  to  a  drink ;  about  a  week  or 
two  after  I  went  to  the  farm,  George  had  a  fight  with 
his  wife  at  the  dinner  table ;  George  told  her  she  was 
too  intimate  with  Lew  and  a  painter,  who  was  working 
there ;  she  talked  back  to  George  and  George  threw 
things  at  her ;  after  dinner  George  told  me  that  what 
he  said  to  his  wife  was  true ;  that  was  the  first  I  knew 
about  George's  trouble  with  his  wife ;  after  that 
George  talked  to  me  about  his  wife  all  the  time ;  once 
I  told  George  I  would  like  to  go  West ;  one  day  George 
said  he  was  going  to  take  the  painter  to  law,  and  get 
some  money  from  him,  and  if  I  would  stick  by  him,  he 


THE  CASE  OF  ROLAND  PENNINGTON      45 

would  divide  up  with  me  and  take  me  West.  After- 
wards he  talked  more  about  Lew  and  his  wife ;  one 
day  he  said  if  it  didn't  stop,  he  would  break  up,  sell  the 
furniture,  and  go  West,  and  that  if  I  would  save  my 
money  to  help  out,  he  would  take  me  with  him ;  one 
day  George's  wife  was  away  all  day.  Lew  was  away 
that  day  too ;  they  came  home  about  the  same  time ; 
George  told  me  afterwards  that  he  accused  his  wife  of 
being  with  Lew ;  that  night  Lew  came  in  the  cow 
stable  while  George  and  I  were  milking;  they  had 
some  words,  but  I  could  not  hear  what  they  said ; 
George  looked  pretty  mad  and  Lew  was  excited ; 
George  told  me  afterwards  that  he  had  accused  Lew  of 
being  with  his  wife  and  Lew  denied  it ;  he  also  said  it 
was  as  much  as  he  could  do  to  keep  from  getting  up 
and  smashing  Lew  in  the  face.  On  several  different 
times  when  we  were  working  together,  George  said 
that  if  Lew  didn't  stop  going  with  his  wife,  he  would 
put  a  stop  to  it ;  George  had  charge  over  me  when 
Lew  was  not  at  the  farm,  and  one  time  when  I  asked  Lew 
for  some  money  to  buy  shoes,  he  would  only  give  me  two 
dollars,  and  gave  five  dollars  to  George  to  buy  shoes 
for  me ;  after  the  first  of  November,  George  said, 
"Lew  hasn't  paid  me.  I  wonder  why";  he  said  this 
on  two  or  three  diiferent  occasions ;     on  Thursday, 


46  THE  CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

November  6th,  George  came  to  me  and  said,  "Well, 
Rol,  Lew  paid  me  to-day."  I  said,  "Did  he  ?"  and  he 
says,  "Yes,  he  had  a  big  bunch  of  money  on  him.  Did 
you  ever  see  a  thousand  dollar  bill.?"  I  said,  "No,  I 
never  saw  one."  He  says,  "Well,  neither  did  I.  What 
figures  ought  a  thousand  dollar  bill  have  on  it?"  I 
says,  "I  don't  know.  A  thousand  is  one  and  three 
noughts  after  it."  He  says,  "Well,  I  asked  the  Mrs. 
about  it,  and  if  that's  right  he  had  one  of  them  on  him." 
This  took  place  Thursday  afternoon  about  half  past 
three  in  the  stable.  That  night  about  quarter  after 
five  while  George  and  I  were  separating  the  milk  down 
in  the  milk  house,  George  said,  "How  would  you  like 
to  have  that  bunch  of  money  Lew's  got  on  him  ?"  I 
don't  remember  saying  anything  to  that.  There  was 
nothing  more  said  about  it  that  day.  The  next  morn- 
ing, George  and  I  were  separating  the  milk  down  at  the 
milk  house  before  breakfast,  and  George  said,  "Well, 
Lew  will  have  that  bunch  of  money  on  him  to-day. 
Let's  get  it."  I  said,  "  What  do  you  mean  .'' "  He  says, 
"Why,  do  away  with  him."  I  says,  "What.?  Kill 
him?"  He  says,  "Yes."  I  says,  "No.  I  won't  kill 
him."  He  says,  "Well,  you  start  it  and  I'll  finish  it. 
I  got  a  blackjack  up  at  the  house,  I  used  one  time 
myself  to  knock  a  man  in  the  head  with  out  West,  to 


THE   CASE  OF   ROLAND  PENNINGTON       47 

get  seventy-five  dollars  from  him  to  come  East  on." 
He  said  he  was  in  a  bank  in  the  West  and  saw  this  man 
get  the  money — the  seventy-five  dollars  — and  when  the 
man  came  out,  he  managed  to  get  a  ride  with  him,  and 
while  they  were  going  along  the  road,  he  hit  the  man 
in  the  head  and  knocked  him  out,  and  went  on  his  way. 
I  didn't  say  anything. 

That  afternoon,  about  three  o'clock,  George  came  to 
me  in  the  milk  house,  while  we  were  getting  the  milk 
buckets  and  cans  ready  to  take  to  the  barn,  and  handed 
me  the  blackjack  and  said,  "Here's  the  blackjack; 
you  can  do  it  with  that."  I  put  it  in  my  pocket.  We 
then  went  to  the  bam.  From  then  up  to  about  five 
o'clock,  while  we  were  working  about  the  barn,  George 
kept  saying  to  me,  "Don't  lose  your  nerve.  The  first 
chance  you  get  after  the  workmen  are  gone,  get  him." 
Several  times  he  said,  "Don't  miss  your  chance  — 
Don't  forget."  Lew  was  away  that  afternoon.  He 
came  home  while  George  and  I  were  milking. 

After  we  finished  milking,  we  took  the  milk  down  to 
the  milk  house ;  then  I  went  back  to  the  bam  to  feed 
the  horses.  While  I  was  feeding  them,  George  came 
up  from  the  milk  house  to  feed  the  calf.  I  generally 
fed  the  calf.  George  seldom  did  it.  In  feeding  the 
horse,  I  had  to  carry  hay  around  from  the  old  horse 


48  THE  CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

stable  to  the  new  one.  In  going  around  for  some  hay, 
I  met  George  right  outside  the  old  horse  stable  door. 
He  said,  "Lew  will  be  around  here  pretty  soon.  You 
can  get  him  then."  After  I  had  finished  feeding  the 
horses,  I  took  the  fork  over  to  the  old  stable.  As  I  was 
doing  so,  Lew  went  in  the  new  stable.  I  met  George 
at  the  stable  door  when  I  came  out  from  putting  the 
fork  away.  George  said,  "He's  in  the  new  horse  stable ; 
go  get  him."  I  went  in  and  told  Lew  there  was  a  nail 
in  the  last  stall  next  to  the  box  stall  and  that  he  had 
better  look  at  it.  He  went  up  to  look  at  it,  and  while 
looking  at  the  place  I  told  him,  I  struck  him  on  the 
head  with  the  blackjack.  He  turned  part  way  around, 
threw  up  his  arm,  and  said,  "Hey,  what  are  you  doing  ?" 
I  struck  at  him  some  more ;  he  rushed  at  me  and  we 
clinched.  This  happened  in  the  stall  alongside  a 
horse.  After  we  clinched  we  got  out  Into  the  passage- 
way back  of  the  horses.  Lew  soon  got  the  blackjack 
away  from  me.  As  we  came  out  into  the  passageway, 
I  think  I  saw  George  near  the  door.  He  afterwards 
told  me  he  heard  when  I  hit  Lew  first  and  that  he  came 
in,  and  that  while  Lew  and  I  were  wrestling.  Lew  made 
a  grab  for  him  and  knocked  his  glasses  off.  Lew  and  I 
tussled  quite  a  while  up  and  down  the  passage  back  of 
the  horses ;    Lew  was  hollering  all  the  time ;    I  think 


THE  CASE  OF  ROLAND  PENNINGTON      49 

we  went  down  once,  got  up  again,  and  went  down 
again,  with  Lew  on  top  of  me;  then  I  got  on  top  of 
him.  At  about  that  time  he  called  for  George  ;  George 
must  have  gone  out  in  the  meantime,  for  when  Lew 
called  for  him,  I  remember  the  door  being  opened  and 
George  coming  in.  He  came  up  and  asked  Lew  what 
was  the  matter,  whether  the  horses  kicked  him.  Lew 
said,  "Yes,  yes,  help  me."  George  stooped  over  and 
whispered  to  me,  "Where  is  the  blackjack  .f*"  I  told 
him  Lew  had  it.  Lew  then  said,  "George,  you  are  no 
kind  of  a  man."  Whether  George  got  the  blackjack 
or  not  I  don't  know.  He  then  went  around  by  Lew's 
liead  and  started  kicking.  I  had  my  hand  on  Lew's 
head  and  the  first  kick  George  made  he  kicked  my 
knuckles.  I  then  left  go  of  Lew  and  got  up.  While 
getting  up  George  was  continuing  to  kick  him  in  the 
head.  After  continuing  to  kick  him  in  the  head  after 
I  got  up,  George  went  around  and  kicked  and  stamped 
Lew  in  the  side.  Then  he  stopped  —  and  said  as 
though  to  himself  —  "Which  side  is  his  heart  on?" 
Then  he  started  to  kick  him  on  the  other  side.  After 
a  while  he  stopped.  I  don't  remember  whether  he 
said  anything  to  me  or  not.  Anyhow,  George  took 
him  by  the  head  and  shoulders  and  I  by  the  feet  and 
we  carried  him  into  the  box  stall.     Then  George  went 


50  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

up  to  the  house  for  a  lantern.  I  waited  for  him  at  the 
stable  door.  He  came  down  with  the  lantern  and 
went  in  the  box  stall,  felt  Lew's  heart,  and  then  stood 
up  and  stamped  him  some  more ;  then  he  searched 
him. 

In  tussling  with  Lew  I  had  gotten  blood  on  my  coat, 
pants,  and  shirt.  After  George  searched  Lew,  we  left 
the  stable,  and  I  asked  George  where  the  overalls  were 
that  the  whitewasher  had  worn.  George  said  he 
thought  they  were  up  at  the  wagon  house.  We  went 
there,  but  could  not  find  them.  George  did  find  an  old 
pair  of  Lew's  pants  and  a  shirt.  He  gave  them  to  me 
and  I  put  them  on.  While  I  was  putting  them  on 
George  went  in  the  house.  I  went  in  later,  went  to  my 
room,  put  on  another  coat,  and  went  down  to  supper. 
George  finished  his  supper  first ;  got  up  and  told  the 
Mrs.  he  was  going  to  Gradyville  after  some  sulphur  for 
the  pigs.  He  then  asked  me  if  I  wanted  to  go  along 
with  him.  I  said  I  would.  Then  we  went  to  the  bam  ; 
George  got  two  bags  in  the  old  horse  stable  and  put  one 
inside  the  other.  Then  we  went  in  the  new  horse 
stable  where  Lew  was.  George  set  the  lantern  down 
and  told  me  to  take  hold  of  his  arms  and  lift  his  head 
and  shoulders.  I  did  so,  and  George  slipped  the  two 
bags  over  Lew's  head  and  body.     Then  George  tied  a 


THE   CASE  OF   ROLAND  PENNINGTON       51 

cloth  around  the  neck  overtop  the  bags.  Then  he  told 
me  to  hitch  the  horse  Dick  to  the  milk  wagon.  I  did 
so.  Then  I  returned  to  the  new  horse  stable.  George 
then  said  we  will  carry  him  up  to  the  wagon.  I  had 
left  it  in  front  of  the  wagon  house  at  the  barn.  George 
said,  "We  had  better  take  him  up  through  the  bam." 
George  took  him  by  the  head  and  shoulders  and  I  by 
the  feet.  We  carried  him  up  through  the  bam.  When 
we  got  to  the  wagon,  George  got  some  bags  and  put 
them  on  the  floor  of  the  wagon.  Then  we  put  the  body 
in.  Then  we  got  a  blanket  and  threw  it  over  the  body. 
Then  George  got  two  shovels  and  a  grubbing  hoe,  and 
put  them  in  the  wagon.     Then  we  drove  away. 

After  we  got  started  George  said  we  would  bury  the 
body  in  Lauterback's  woods.  When  we  reached  the 
road  that  he  said  led  up  to  that  woods,  he  said  it  was 
too  near  home  and  kept  on  driving.  After  driving  for 
a  long  time  we  came  to  a  pair  of  bars.  He  pulled 
up  there  and  said,  "That  wood  over  there  looks  pretty 
good."  Then  he  drove  on  a  little  piece  further.  Then  he 
said  we  better  go  back  to  that  woods.  Then  we  turned 
around  and  went  back  to  the  bars.  George  got  out 
there,  handed  me  the  lines,  and  he  took  down  the  bars. 
I  drove  in,  he  put  in  the  bars,  and  led  the  way,  and  I 
drove  on  across  a  field,  till  we  came  to  another  pair  of 


52  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

bars.  He  took  them  out  and  then  led  the  way  across 
the  fields  to  the  woods.  When  we  got  there,  George 
picked  out  a  place;  said  he  thought  it  would  be  an 
all  right  place.  Then  we  dug  the  grave.  Then  we 
went  back  to  the  wagon,  got  the  body,  put  it  in  the 
grave,  and  covered  it  up.     Then  we  returned  home. 

That  night  George  suggested  that  we  clean  up  the 
marks  in  the  morning.  The  next  morning  we  got  up 
early  and  cleaned  up  the  marks  on  the  floor  and  washed 
the  walls.  George  said  to  make  sure  there  would  be 
no  marks  on  the  wall  it  would  be  better  to  whitewash 
it.  He  said  he  would  do  that  and  for  me  to  go  to  other 
work,  so  I  started  to  haul  stone.  George  also  said  to 
take  my  clothes  to  the  milk  house  and  bum  them.  I 
did  take  them  there  on  Saturday  morning.  George 
was  there  and  I  gave  them  to  him.  He  said  he  would 
burn  them.  On  Saturday,  George  came  to  me  and 
gave  me  seven  dollars  and  a  watch  and  a  ring  which  he 
got  off"  of  Lew  when  he  searched  him.  He  told  me  he 
had  only  gotten  fourteen  dollars  and  five  cents  and  to 
pawn  the  watch  and  chuck  the  ring.  I  threw  the  ring 
away  and  took  the  watch  to  Philadelphia  and  pawned 
it  at  Carver  Reeds  on  Market  Street  near  Fifteenth 
Street  for  four  dollars.  When  I  saw  George  the  next 
morning,  Sunday,  I  gave  him  the  pawn  ticket  and  said 


THE   CASE  OF   ROLAND  PENNINGTON       53 

I  would  give  him  two  dollars  when  I  got  the  change. 
He  said  never  mind  that. 

(Signed)  Roland  Pennington. 

Here  again  is  a  crime  so  abhorrent  in  its  details  that 
it  is  unbelievable.  There  is  no  excuse  for  it,  no  ade- 
quate motive,  no  justification  whatever  so  far  as  the 
boy,  Pennington,  is  concerned. 

For  March,  it  is  easy  to  believe,  as  the  jury  evidently 
did  believe,  that  he  was  actuated  by  what  might  be 
called  an  insane  jealousy  of  the  woman  with  whom  he 
was  living.  We  are  familiar  with  the  lengths  to  which 
such  jealousy  can  lead  a  man.  But  why  Pennington 
allowed  himself  to  be  made  the  dupe  of  this  jealous  man 
cannot  be  explained  ;  it  is  absolutely  incomprehensible 
on  any  theory  that  assumes  that  he  is  a  normal  boy  of 
nineteen  years. 

It  was  in  accordance  with  this  feeling  that  some  one 
raised  the  inquiry  as  to  whether  the  boy  was  possibly  a 
mental  defective.  This  question  having  arisen,  the 
writer  was  asked  to  examine  him  and  give  an  opinion 
as  to  whether  or  not  he  was  normal. 

Accordingly  the  examination  was  made  in  the  Dela- 
ware County  jail  in  Media ;  this  showed  that  the  boy 
had  a  mentality  of  about  eleven  years  according  to  the 
Binet  Scale.     He  could  not  do  any  of  the  tests  for  age 


«l 


54  THE  CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

twelve  and  failed  on  some  of  those  in  ten  and  eleven. 
This  indicated  an  intelligence  scarcely  up  to  eleven. 

Further  examination  by  other  methods,  the  circum- 
stances of  his  life,  his  appearance,  and  his  school  his- 
tory, all  tended  to  corroborate  this  view.  The  boy 
was  nineteen  years  old  when  he  committed  the  crime; 
two  years  before  he  had  left  Westtown  Boarding 
School,  after  an  attendance  there  of  two  and  a  half  years. 
When  he  entered  the  school,  the  teachers  graded  him 
as  of  a  capacity  equivalent  to  the  fifth  grade  in 
public  school ;  he,  therefore,  began  sixth-grade  work. 
He  never  got  out  of  that  grade.  For  two  and  a  half 
years  he  studied  and  tried  to  pass.  He  was  absolutely 
unable  to  do  sixth-grade  work.  Sixth-grade  work,  it 
will  be  remembered,  is  about  the  grade  for  a  twelve- 
year-old  normal  boy ;  thus  we  have  a  striking  agree- 
ment between  his  school  experience  and  his  Binet  tests. 
By  the  Binet  test  he  is  eleven ;  in  school  he  cannot  do 
twelve-year  work ! 

Asked  what  he  had  done  since  he  left  the  school,  he 
said  he  had  done  "a  good  many  things."  Asked  where 
he  had  worked,  he  said  he  did  not  remember  all  of  the 
places.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  had  had  exactly  the 
career  that  the  high-grade  imbecile  usually  has  out  in 
the  world.     He  either  gets  discharged  from  his  positions 


THE   CASE  OF   ROLAND   PENNINGTON       55 

because  of  incompetency  or  he  leaves  because  of  his  *sr 
nomadic  tendencies.     The  imbecile  rarely  stays  long 
in  a  place  if  free  to  move. 

In  addition  to  the  above,  the  reader  will  see  many 
evidences  of  childishness  in  his  confession.  He  talks 
like  a  child ;  he  alludes  to  George  March  as  a  child 
would;  he  says,  "He  has  charge  over  me"  —  "He 
was  kind  and  good  to  me ;  he  used  to  take  me  to 
Grady ville,"  etc.  Even  Pinkerton  gave  the  money  to 
March  to  buy  shoes  for  Pennington.  Again  Penning- 
ton says,  "George  said  he  was  going  West  and  he 
would  take  me  with  him?''  One  cannot  imagine  a 
nineteen-year-old  youth,  or  even  a  fifteen-year-old, 
talking  in  this  way.  By  the  time  a  boy  reaches  the 
latter  age,  he  is  in  his  own  mind  the  equal  of  anybody. 
He  would  not  say,  "George  took  me."  He  would  say, 
"We  went."  He  would  say,  "I  got  along  all  right 
with  George,"  or  some  other  expression  whereby  he 
would  assert  his  own  manhood  and  not  take  the  role 
of  a  child. 

While  in  jail  he  showed  no  realization  of  the  serious- 
ness of  his  situation  ;  showed  no  remorse  for  his  deed  ; 
took  no  interest  in  his  case.  For  example,  he  was  told 
by  his  lawyer  not  to  allow  himself  to  be  examined  by 
any  doctors  without  sending  for  his  counsel ;    in  spite 


56  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

of  this  warning  he  allowed  himself  to  be  examined  by 
four  physicians  at  one  time  and  by  two  at  another,  and 
never  mentioned  the  matter  to  his  counsel  even  after 
it  was  done. 

In  the  confession  made  to  the  prosecuting  attorney 
one  notices,  as  in  the  one  we  have  quoted,  that  he 
appears  simple  and  innocent ;  answers  the  questions 
often  in  terms  of  the  questioner  instead  of  by  a  simple 
"Yes"  or  "No,"  which  would  be  natural  for  a  normal 
young  man ;  he  is  uncertain  and  hesitates ;  he  says, 
"  I  think,"  in  a  great  many  cases  where  it  was  strongly 
to  his  advantage  to  speak  positively. 

After  the  deed  was  committed  he  took  no  care  to  re- 
move the  evidence;  everything  that  was  done  in  that 
connection  was  done  at  the  suggestion  of  George  March. 
All  the  way  through  this  part  of  the  confession  it  reads  — 
"He  led,  I  followed,"  "I  did  as  he  told  me." 

Having  satisfied  ourselves  that  Roland  Pennington 
is  a  high-grade  imbecile,  the  next  question  is,  even  as 
an  imbecile,  why  did  he  do  this  deed. 

In  the  case  of  Jean  Gianini  we  found  that  it  was  for 
revenge  of  a  fancied  wrong,  that  is,  according  to  his 
own  statement.  If  not  that,  it  may  have  been  a  sexual 
matter.  In  this  case  neither  motive  applies,  and  we  have 
only  two  possible  theories.     The  theory  of  the  state  was 


THE   CASE  OF  ROLAND  PENNINGTON       57 

that  it  was  for  robbery.  Indeed,  Roland  himself  seems 
to  admit  that  this  was  the  motive.  But  this  again  is 
only  a  part  of  his  imbecility.  He  was  given  a  leading 
question  by  the  prosecution  and  was  weak-minded 
enough  to  say,  *'Yes." 

As  a  matter  of  fact  one  finds  it  very  hard  to  get  any 
evidence  from  the  whole  situation  that  he  really  was 
lead  by  cupidity.  There  is  no  evidence  of  any  elabo- 
rate plans  in  regard  to  money,  either  as  to  getting  it  or 
as  to  what  was  to  be  done  with  it  when  he  got  it.  March 
had  talked  about  a  thousand-dollar  bill,  and  asked 
Pennington  how  he  would  like  to  have  "that  bunch  of 
money."  Pennington  says  he  does  not  remember 
saying  anything  in  reply.  This  does  not  look  as  though 
it  aroused  any  great  emotion  in  him.  Later  March 
said  —  referring  to  the  money  Pinkerton  was  supposed 
to  have  "on  him"  —  "Let's  .get  it."  Pennington  asks, 
"What  do  you  mean  ?"  He  is  clearly  thinking  less  of 
the  money  than  of  what  he  begins  to  dimly  understand 
they  are  to  do.  When  he  understands  that  they  are  to 
kill  him,  he  says  distinctly,  "No.  I  won't  kill  him." 
Never  again  is  the  subject  of  money  mentioned.  In 
all  March's  urging  him  to  do  the  deed  he  never  says, 
"Remember  the  money,"  or  alludes  to  money  in  any 
way. 


58  THE  CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

Perhaps  we  are  begging  the  question.  If  Pennington 
were  really  intelligent  and  shrewd,  he  would  not  say 
anything  in  his  confession  that  would  supply  a  motive 
for  the  crime.  Not  only  does  the  whole  confession 
give  ample  evidence  that  he  was  not  sufficiently  in- 
telligent to  protect  himself  in  this  way,  but  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  matter  shows  clearly  that  it  was  of  practi- 
cally no  importance  to  him.  After  the  deed,  March 
gave  him  seven  dollars  !  He  said,  *'  I  thought  there  was 
more."  That  is  all.  He  did  not  insist  or  complain. 
He  accepted  it  calmly  and  without  protest.  He  even 
proposed  to  give  March  half  of  the  four  dollars  re- 
ceived for  the  pawned  watch.  Imagine  a  nineteen-year- 
old  boy  with  full  consciousness  and  responsibility  kill- 
ing a  man  for  his  money  and  being  so  complacent  over 
receiving  seven  dollars  !  The  theory  is  not  convincing. 
Even  the  prosecution,  whose  whole  case  depended  upon 
showing  a  motive,  never  pretended  that  Pennington 
made  any  stir  because  the  amount  was  so  small. 

There  is  not  the  slightest  evidence,  external  or  in- 
ternal, that  the  idea  of  getting  money  played  any  part 
in  Pennington's  share  of  the  crime. 

Why  then  did  he  consent  to  begin  the  matter  which 
George  was  to  finish  ?  It  is  clearly  a  case  of  suggestion. 
A  suggestion,  it  is  true,  which  never  would  have  worked 


THE   CASE  OF   ROLAND   PENNINGTON       59 

with  a  normal  nineteen-year-old  youth.  With  this 
weak-minded  boy  it  is  easily  understandable.  As  we 
study  the  confession  we  discover  that  George  March, 
either  consciously  or  more  likely  unconsciously,  used 
suggestion  most  adroitly.  Undoubtedly  he  had  learned, 
through  association  with  Roland  for  six  weeks,  that  this 
boy  was  very  simple-minded  and  easily  led.  Having 
reasons  of  his  own  for  desiring  to  get  rid  of  Lewis 
Pinkerton,  he  first  suggests  the  matter  of  money,  hoping 
to  appeal  to  Roland's  cupidity.  It  will  be  noticed 
that  he  nowhere  uses  the  word  "  murder  "  or  "  kill  "  ; 
even  the  mild  expression,  "Make  away  with  him," 
he  uses  only  once.  When  Roland  at  one  time  almost 
takes  fright  and  asks,  "Do  you  mean  kill  him?"  and 
he  admits  that  he  does  and  Roland  says  he  won't  do 
that,  the  older  man  lulls  him  to  sleep  by  the  suggestion, 
"Well,  you  begin  and  I'll  finish  it." 

March  tells  a  story  about  a  blackjack ;  then  he 
brings  the  blackjack  and  gives  it  to  Roland,  saying 
nothing  except,  "You  can  do  it  with  that."  Roland 
is  so  weak-minded  that  he  takes  the  blackjack  and  puts 
it  in  his  pocket.  When  the  right  time  comes  and  the 
opportunity  is  near  at  hand,  March  stations  himself 
at  a  convenient  place  where  he  will  see  Roland  as  he 
goes  back  and  forth  at  his  work,  and  for  some  little 


6o  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

time  he  constantly  coaxes  and  dogs  him,  pouring  into 
his  ears  a  stream  of  suggestion  such  as,  "You  will  have 
a  chance  pretty  soon";  "Don't  forget";  "Don't  lose 
your  nerve";  "Now  you  can  get  him";  "Now  nail 
him." 

It  is  an  interesting  little  point,  possibly  only  a  coin- 
cidence but  nevertheless  a  perfectly  natural  imbecilic 
association,  that  the  one  seemingly  original  thing 
that  the  boy  did  in  connection  with  the  matter  was  to 
invent  a  little  trick  in  regard  to  the  nail  in  the  stall. 
It  is  quite  likely  that  even  this  was  suggested  by 
George's  previous  expression,  "Nail  him." 

Even  the  blow  itself  does  not  seem  to  have  been  given 
with  normal  vigor ;  having  every  advantage, — the  victim 
bending  over,  Roland  being  behind  him  and  with  a 
blackjack  which  is  capable  of  thoroughly  stunning,  if  not 
killing  at  one  blow,  —  he  apparently  did  not  strike  with 
force  enough  to  even  produce  unconsciousness.  His 
victim  was  able  to  talk  and  to  struggle  for  some  minutes, 
until  March,  the  companion  in  crime,  came  up  and,  as 
he  expressed  it,  "finished  him." 

As  to  motive,  then,  we  conclude  that  the  defendant 
had  none.  He  was  acting  upon  the  suggestion  of 
George  March.  Even  the  poor  mind  that  he  had, 
which  under  other  circumstances   might  possibly  have 


THE   CASE  OF   ROLAND  PENNINGTON       6i 

rebelled  at  such  a  suggestion,  was  lulled  to  sleep  by  this 
man  of  better  intelligence  for  whom  he  had  been  work- 
ing and  who  he  had  learned  to  think  was  "good  and 
kind"  and  on  whose  judgment  he  thought  he  could 
rely. 

Since  the  Pennington  case  is  typical  of  the  way  weak 
minds  work  under  control  of  normal  minds,  it  will  be 
worth  while  to  analyze  somewhat  more  fully  this  idea 
of  suggestion. 

How  does  suggestion  work  ?  Why  does  it  indicate  a 
weak  mind  and  how  does  it  aflfect  our  ideas  of  responsi- 
bility ?     Let  us  see. 

We  have  already  seen  that  Roland  Pennington  was 
under  the  control  of  another  mind ;  we  do  not  mean 
that  he  was  actually  hypnotized  —  a  nonsensical  plea 
that  is  sometimes  brought  into  court  cases.  Roland 
Pennington  was  a  victim  of  suggestion.  An  illustra- 
tion will  make  this  clear. 

If  I  were  to  take  a  city  man  to  a  third-rail  electric 
road  and  ask  him  to  stand  on  one  rail  and  put  his  hand 
on  the  third  rail,  he  would  resist  the  suggestion,  be- 
cause there  would  immediately  come  into  his  mind 
visions  of  himself  burned  to  a  crisp  or  instantly  killed. 
But  suppose  I  take  a  man  who  has  come  from  the  rural 
districts  and  who  never  heard  of  third  rails.     He  has 


62  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

lived,  let  us  assume,  in  my  house  and  worked  under 
my  direction  a  month  and  has  come  to  regard  me  as 
a  friend.  We  have  worked  together  and  talked  to- 
gether; I  take  him  out  and  say,  "Touch  that  third 
rail."  Will  he  resist  the  suggestion  ?  Not  at  all. 
Why  not  }  What  is  the  difference  between  the  two 
men  }  The  first  has  ideas  about  third  rails.  His  past 
experience  has  filled  his  mind  and  memory  with 
thoughts  and  with  knowledge  which  instantly  come  to 
consciousness  when  I  suggest  touching  the  third  rail. 
The  other  man  has  no  such  experience.  He  has  known 
me  long  enough  to  have  some  faith  in  me.  In  fact 
from  the  very  nature  of  things  he  is  in  the  habit  of  doing 
what  I  tell  him.     I  tell  him  to  do  this,  and  he  does  it. 

Coming  back  to  the  first  case,  one  perhaps  can  con- 
ceive that  the  city  man  and  I  might  come  upon  the  third 
rail  under  such  conditions  that  he  was  not  thinking  of 
it.  Instead  of  saying  "third  rail"  to  him  I  might 
say,  "My  !  that  rail  is  hot"  and  he  would  almost 
instinctively  put  his  hand  upon  it  to  verify  my  remark. 
If  he  survived  and  could  talk  about  it  afterwards,  he 
would  say,  "Of  course  I  ought  to  have  known  and  did 
know  that  was  the  third  rail,  but  I  did  not  think." 
That  is  the  way  suggestion  works. 

To  illustrate  still  further,  we  may  speak  of  hypnotism 


THE   CASE  OF  ROLAND  PENNINGTON       63 

itself.  All  of  the  wonders  that  are  produced  under 
hypnosis  are  to  be  explained  in  exactly  this  way.  The 
subject  is  so  nearly  asleep  that  nothing  gets  into  his 
consciousness  except  the  ideas  suggested  by  the  opera- 
tor. Accordingly  he  is  utterly  unable  to  resist  any 
suggestion  that  is  given  him. 

Now  coming  nearer  to  our  problem,  children  are 
naturally  very  suggestible  because  they  have  not  the 
experiences,  the  ideas.  One  may  easily  believe  that 
an  eleven-year-old  child  could  be  induced  to  touch  the 
third  rail.  Furthermore,  authority  plays  an  enormous 
role  with  children.  I  might  take  my  ten-year-old  boy 
out  for  a  walk.  He  knows  all  about  third  rails  and 
would  not  touch  one.  But  if  I  were  to  say  to  him, 
"Son,  you  can  put  your  hand  on  this,  because  there  is 
no  current  on,"  he  would  probably  obey  without  ques- 
tion, because  of  his  implicit  trust  in  me.  That  confi- 
dence in  a  superior,  either  in  age,  intelligence,  or  position, 
is  one  of  the  characteristics  of  immature  minds  and  one 
of  the  conditions  that  makes  us  all  suggestible.  In 
the  hypnotic  terminology  again,  this  is  the  being  en 
rapport.  The  hypnotized  subject  obeys  the  operator 
and  no  one  else  because  it  is  the  operator  with  whom 
he  is  en  rapport  —  in  other  words,  in  whom  he  has 
confidence. 


64  THE  CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

Now  let  us  come  to  the  situation.  It  is  perfectly 
clear  that  Roland  Pennington  was  under  strong  sug- 
gestion and  that  any  vague  concepts  that  he  might 
have  had  of  the  wrongfulness  of  murder  or  of  killing 
a  man  were  very  carefully  allayed  by  the  man  who  had 
the  influence  over  him  and  who  had  the  motive  for  this 
homicide. 

The  whole  statement  shows  that  Roland  recognized 
George  as  a  superior,  as  one  in  authority  over  him  and 
at  the  same  time  as  a  friend,  as  one  on  whose  word  he 
could  absolutely  rely.  It  is  a  perfect  picture  of  the 
child  following  the  man. 


CHAPTER   III 

THE    CASE    OF    FRED    TRONSON 

Our  third  case  is  that  of  Fred  Tronson  of  Portland, 
Oregon.  What  we  know  of  the  history  of  Tronson  is 
brief,  but  amply  sufficient  to  prove  that  he  belongs  to 
the  group  that  we  are  considering.  He  had  lived  in 
Portland  for  two  years  and  in  that  time  had  held  seven 
different  positions  as  elevator  man.  He  was  twenty- 
four  years  of  age,  when,  in  August,  1914,  he  met  and 
became  infatuated  with  Emma  Ulrich,  a  stenographer 
who  worked  in  the  same  establishment  where  he  ran 
the  elevator.  He  asked  her  to  marry  him,  but  she  re- 
fused. Later  he  was  arrested  for  threatening  her  and  was 
ordered  to  leave  town  and  not  to  annoy  her  any  further. 
On  November  i6th  of  the  same  year  he  waited  for 
her  outside  of  her  home  with  two  loaded  revolvers. 
When  she  stepped  off  the  street  car,  he  again  asked  her 
to  marry  him.  She  became  frightened  and  ran  toward 
her  home.  He  followed  her,  shooting  as  he  went.  He 
followed  her  into  her  own  house  and  there  shot  her 

6s  ' 


66  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

down.  On  Wednesday,  December  9th,  1914,  Tronson 
was  tried  and  convicted  of  murder  in  the  second  degree. 
Oregon  having  abolished  the  death  penalty  on  Novem- 
ber 3d,  only  a  second-degree  verdict,  which  carries  with 

4 

it  imprisonment  for  life,  could  be  returned.  The  trial 
was  very  brief,  and  the  jury  returned  within  fifteen 
minutes.  There  was  practically  no  defense,  except 
the  claim  on  the  part  of  Tronson's  attorney  that  the 
man  was  weak-minded  and,  therefore,  in  strict  jus- 
tice, should  be  placed  in  custody,  not  in  the  peniten- 
tiary but  in  some  other  institution  more  suited  to  his 
condition.  He  had  been  examined  by  two  alienists 
and  pronounced  sane,  but  of  low  mentality.  He  was 
also  examined  by  a  psychologist  who  used  a  modifica- 
tion of  the  Binet  tests,  which  showed  him  to  have  a 
mentality  of  nine  years. 

This  rating  obtained  by  the  psychologist  was  confirmed 
in  many  ways.  His  mother  said  he  had  never  been 
able  to  hold  a  job  more  than  two  or  three  months.  He 
left  school  shortly  before  he  was  twenty,  but  we  have 
no  record  of  what  success  he  had  or  what  grade  he  was 
in.  His  conduct  at  the  trial  and  before  was  that  of  an 
imbecile.  When  he  was  examined  in  the  police  sta- 
tion, he  seemed  to  be  in  constant  fear  that  some  one 
outside  would  do  him  harm.     When  he  had  displayed 


THE   CASE  OF   FRED  TRONSON  67 

uneasiness  about  an  open  window,  the  detectives  told 
how  they  closed  it  and  sat  between  him  and  the  win- 
dow to  assure  him  that  no  one  in  the  street  would  harm 
him.      During   the   impaneling   of   the   jury   and    the 
taking  of  the  testimony,  Tronson  sat  slouching  in  his 
chair,  with  sunken  eyes,  glaring  at  each  witness,  and  with 
his  mouth  hanging  half  open  as  though  he  barely  under- 
stood what  was  going  on.     The  deep  lines  in  his  face 
and  the  dark  circles  beneath  his  eyes  gave  a  vision  of 
sleepless    nights    and    haunting    memories.     Like    the 
other  two  imbeciles  whom  we  have  discu^ed,  he  made 
a  confession.     The  following  is  his  statement:  — 
Statement   of   Fred    Tronson   taken   in   the   office   of 
Detective  Captain  Baty  on  Thursday,  November 
19th,  1914,    in   the   presence   of   Deputy  District 
Attorneys  John  A.  Collier  and  Thomas  G.  Ryan, 
Detectives  Pat  Moloney  and  Tom  Swennes. 

Question.     What  is  your  name  ? 

Answer.     Fred  Tronson. 

Q.     How  old  are  you  ? 

A.     Twenty-four. 

Q.     How  long  have  you  lived  in  Portland  ? 

A.     One  year  and  seven  months. 

Q.     What  have  you  been  doing  ? 

A.     Running  elevators. 


68  THE   CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

Q.  Now,  Fred,  I  am  a  deputy  district  attorney  rep- 
resenting this  state,  Mr:  Ryan  here  is  a  deputy  dis- 
trict attorney,  and  these  other  men  are  officials  and 
officers.  You  have  been  charged  with  a  crime,  and  of 
course  you  have  your  rights.  You  have  a  right  to 
make  a  statement  here  to  me  if  you  want  to  tell  us 
what  the  facts  are.  You  are  not  forced  to  make  a 
statement,  but  you  may  do  so  if  you  want  to.  There 
isn't  any  use  of  your  getting  nervous,  and  there  is  no- 
body going  to  bother  you  here.  You  needn't  be  afraid. 
You  cannot  be  forced  or  compelled  to  make  a  state- 
ment, and  any  statement  you  make  must  be  voluntary. 
Do  you  want  to  make  any  statement  about  this  shoot- 
ing aifair  ? 

J.     Yes. 

Q.  You  may  go  ahead  and  just  tell  me  what  hap- 
pened, commencing  at  the  first  of  it,  and  tell  me  how 
it  came  about. 

J.  Well,  that  time  I  accosted  the  girl  in  the  street^ 
it  was  last  August  the  3d,  I  asked  her  if  she  would 
have  me  and  she  didn't  give  me  any  satisfactory  answer. 
She  said  she  would  wait  outside  at  noon.  In  the  mean- 
time she  had  me  arrested.  Of  course  I  threatened  ta 
shoot  myself  if  she  wouldn't  have  me.  She  says,  "No, 
don't  do  that ;  I  would  rather  have  you  leave  town,'* 


THE   CASE  OF   FRED  TRONSON  69 

she  says  like  that.  She  says,  "I  will  write  to  you." 
She  says,  "You  are  going  to  be  a  man,  aren't  you  .f"' 
I  said,  "Yes,  if  I  can't  have  you."  She  said  she  would 
meet  me  out  there  at  twelve,  and  before  that  she  phoned 
the  police  or  the  other  girl  up  there,  I  don't  know. 

Q.     That  was  last  August  ? 

J.     Yes. 

Q.     You  were  arrested  on  that  charge  ? 

J.     Yes. 

Q.     What  did  they  do  with  you  ? 

j4.  Well,  they  kept  me  here  about  a  week  and  then 
let  me  go  with  the  understanding  that  I  go  out  of  town. 
Judge  Stevenson  says  go  out  in  the  harvest  fields  and 
take  a  good  sweat  and  when  you  come  back,  look  for 
some  other  job  and  you  will  be  all  right.  Come  back  in 
the  fall.  So  I  went  out  next  Monday  and  stayed  a 
couple  of  days  and  couldn't  get  anything  and  came 
back  and  waited  about  a  week  and  stayed  another 
week  and  then  went  to  Hood  River,  and  picked  apples 
and  stayed  up  there  about  ten  days  and  then  came 
back  and  I  couldn't  get  anything.  I  was  hoping  the 
girl  would  kind  of  come  to  me  after  awhile  and  I  found 
after  a  few  months  that  she  wasn't,  so  I  thought  I 
would  get  rid  of  her  so  somebody  else  wouldn't  have 
her. 


70  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

Q.     When  did  you  make  up  your  mind  to  do  that  ? 

A.     Last  week. 

Q.  After  you  made  up  your  mind  to  do  that,  what 
did  you  do  ? 

j4.     I  went  off  and  got  the  guns. 

Q.     Where  did  you  get  the  guns  ? 

A.     At  Vancouver. 

Q.     What  kind  of  a  gun  was  it  ? 

A.  You  got  it  there.  That's  the  one  I  shot  her 
with  (pointing  to  a  gun  on  Captain  Baty's  desk 
just  opposite  Mr.  Ryan),  but  I  had  another  one, 
too. 

(This  gun,  marked  #5308  on  gun  itself  and  marked 
"Exhibit  A  —  Ryan,"  was  thereupon  handed  to  the 
prisoner.) 

Q.  This  gun  marked  "Exhibit  A,"  here,  is  that  the 
gun  you  shot  her  with  ? 

J.     Yes. 

Q.     Where  did  you  get  that  gun  ? 

j4.     Vancouver. 

Q.  For  what  purpose  did  you  get  it  ^  What  did 
you  intend  to  do  with  it  ? 

A.  I  intended  to  shoot  her.  I  intended  to  hold  on 
to  it,  but  in  my  excitement  I  dropped  it  in  the  weeds 
there,  I  guess. 


THE   CASE  OF   FRED  TRONSON  71 

Q.  Where  did  you  get  the  gun  at  Vancouver  ?  Do 
you  know  the  name  of  the  store  ? 

y4.     No,  it  was  a  hardware  store. 

Q.  How  long  before  you  did  the  shooting  did  you 
get  this  gun  ? 

A.  .  About  three  hours,  something  like  that. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  that  you  went  to  Vancouver 
and  got  this  gun  and  then  came  over  to  Portland,  and 
did  the  shooting  ? 

J.     Yes. 

Q.  Where  did  you  get  this  other  gun  ^  (Gun  num- 
bered 2506  was  thereupon  marked  "Exhibit  B"  by 
Mr.  Ryan,  and  handed  to  Mr.  Tronson.) 

^.     This  second-hand  gun  ? 

Q.     At  a  second-hand  store  ? 

J.     Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  buy  that  at  the  same  time  you  bought 
the  other  gun  ? 

J.     Yes. 

Q.     Where  did  you  buy  this  gun  .'* 

J.  Well,  I  didn't  want  to  buy  them  both  at  the 
same  place.  I  thought  that  they  might  get  suspicious. 
I  didn't  want  to  get  two  five-dollar  guns.  I  bought 
that  for  three. 

Q.     What  did  you  have  in  mind  when  you  bought  this  ? 


72  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

A.  Well,  if  one  didn't  work,  the  other  would. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  bought 
this  to  kill  her  with  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  If  the  new  gun  didn't  work,  that  would  .'' 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  you  came  over  from  Vancouver,  did  you 

have  the  guns  loaded  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  load  the  guns  and  prepare 

to  do  the  shooting  ? 

A.  Down  there  along  the  river  some  place. 

Q.  Out  in  South  Portland  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  load  both  of  them  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  knew  where  Miss  Ulrich  lived,  did  you  ? 

A,  Yes. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  visited  at  the  house  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  kept  company  with  her  ^. 

A.  Yes,  I  walked  around  the  streets  with  her  once 
in  awhile. 

Q.  You  never  went  to  her  home  ? 

A.  No. 


i 


THE  CASE  OF  FRED  TRONSON  73 

Q.     Did  you  know  her  folks  ? 

J.     No. 

Q.  Where  did  you  stay  out  there  until  she  came 
along  ? 

J.  I  didn't  get  out  there  any  too  soon.  I  didn't 
stand  round  two  minutes. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  leave  town  here  to  go  out  to 
the  scene  of  the  shooting  ? 

^.     I  came  right  from  Vancouver  and  went  through. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  get  over  to  Portland  from 
Vancouver  ? 

^.     About  five  o'clock. 

Q.  After  you  got  over  to  Portland  what  car  did 
you  take  then  ? 

^.     I  walked  out. 

Q.     Which  way  did  you  go  out  ? 

^.     First  Street. 

Q.     How  far  out  First  Street  did  you  go  ? 

A.  Until  I  struck  some  of  those  other  streets  down 
there,  Front  Street  I  guess,  Water  or  Corbett. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  wait  out  there  before  you  saw 
Miss  Ulrich  ? 

J.  I  didn't  wait  at  all,  I  just  walked  around  the 
block  and  she  got  off  the  car. 

Q.     Did  you  see  her  get  off  the  car  ? 


74  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

A.     Yes. 

Q.     What  time  was  it  when  she  got  off  the  car  ? 

A.     A  Httle  before  six. 

Q.     What  car  did  she  get  off  ? 

A.     North  and  South  Portland. 

Q.     Did  you  speak  to  her  when  she  got  off  ? 

A.  Yes,  I  said,  "Wait  a  minute."  I  wanted  to 
talk  to  her,  and  asked  her  for  the  last  time ;  she  started 
running,  hollering. 

Q.     Just  what  did  you  say  to  her  .? 

A.  That's  all  I  said  to  her.  I  wanted  to  talk  to 
her  and  she  started  running  and  hollered. 

Q.  Did  you  have  the  gun  in  your  hand  at  that 
time  ? 

A.     No,  in  my  pocket. 

Q.     All  loaded  and  ready  for  action  ? 

A.     Yes. 

Q,     How  far  was  her  house  from  the  car  ? 

A.     Not  quite  half  a  block. 

Q.  Was  there  any  one  else  got  off  the  car  at  that 
place  ? 

A.     No. 

Q.     What  did  you  do  next  ? 

A.     I  followed  her  around  the  house. 

Q.     Did  she  run  around  the  house  ? 


THE   CASE  OF   FRED  TRONSON  75 

A.     Yes. 

Q.     Did  you  run  after  her  ? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.     When  did  you  commence  shooting  ? 

A.     Just  before  she  went  in  the  door. 

Q.     What  door  did  she  go  in  ? 

A.     The  back  door. 

Q.     How  many  shots  did  you  fire  ? 

A.     One  before  she  went  in. 

Q.     How  many  after  that  ? 

A.     Four ;  I  think  there  are  only  five  in  the  gun. 

Q.     Did  you  know  that  the  last  bullet  struck  her  ? 

A.  I  knew  one  must  because  she  fell  down  after  I 
began  firing  the  other  bullets.  She  was  in  the  bath- 
room ;  then  she  began  to  crunch  down ;  then  she  fell  on 
her  face  like  a  board  and  struck  her  head  on  the  floor. 
I  thought  she  must  be  dead  or  unconscious  or  something 
like  that.  I  left  then.  I  took  it  for  granted  she  was 
dead. 

Q.  You  didn't  leave  or  didn't  stop  shooting  until 
you  thought  she  was  dead .? 

A.     No. 

Q.  You  went  out  there  for  the  purpose  of  killing 
her  if  she  didn't  accede  to  your  wishes  ? 

A.     Yes,  I  am  sorry  I  had  to  do  it. 


76  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

Q.     Why  did  you  feel  that  you  had  to  do  it  ? 

^.  I  didn't  want  anybody  else  to  have  her  if  I 
couldn't.  I  thought  I  should  have  her.  She  told  me 
once  she  liked  me,  and  I  didn't  see  any  reason  for 
turning  me  down.  I  acted  like  a  gentleman.  I  had 
given  her  one  present  already. 

Q.  After  you  thought  she  was  dead  and  that  you 
had  completed  your  job,  where  did  you  go  ? 

A.     I  ran  down  on  Hamilton  Street. 

Q.  This  gun  that  you  used  to  do  the  shooting,  was 
this  gun  (marked  "Exhibit  A")  the  new  gun  numbered 
5308  (handing  it  to  him  for  inspection)  ? 

J.     Yes. 

Q.     Where  did  you  go  ? 

j4.  I  ran  out  of  the  way  kind  of  on  a  trot  down  into 
Hawthorne  Bridge  and  then  North  on  Union  Avenue 
and  caught  the  Vancouver  car  and  went  to  Van- 
couver. 

Q.     Did  you  take  both  of  these  guns  with  you  ? 

yi.     No,  just  one.     I  dropped  the  other  one. 

Q.     Which  one  did  you  drop  ? 

^4.     The  new  gun. 

Q.  That  is,  you  dropped  that  after  all  the  bullets 
were  fired  out  ? 

J.     Yes. 


THE   CASE  OF   FRED  TRONSON  77 

Q.     After  you  got  to  Vancouver  where  did  you  go  ? 

A.  I  went  to  a  picture  show  over  there  and  stayed 
about  half  an  hour,  and  then  I  went  to  a  rooming  house. 

Q.     Stayed  all  night  in  Vancouver  ? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  feel  pretty  nervous,  knowing  that  you 
killed  her } 

A.  Yes,  I  sat  up.  I  didn't  sit  up  ;  I  laid  awake.  I 
didn't  sleep  at  all. 

Q.     Where  did  you  go  when  you  left  Vancouver  ? 

A.  Went  right  out  the  next  morning,  went  right 
out  the  Pacific  Highway. 

Q.     Why  did  you  run  away  ? 

A.  Well,  I  wanted  to  get  the  papers  and  see  if  I  had 
killed  her  and  then  I  was  going  back  and  shoot  myself 
at  the  same  place  I  shot  her.  I  didn't  want  them  to  get 
me  until  after  I  went  around  another  way  and  shot  my- 
self down  there. 

Q.     Did  you  intend  to  come  back  ^. 

A.     Yes. 

Q.     Did  you  read  the  papers  at  Vancouver? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  see  in  the  papers  that  Miss  Ulrich  was 
dead  ? 

A.     Yes. 


78  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

Q.     Why  did  you  keep  going  the  other  way  ? 

A.  Well,  I  didn't  want  to  come  back  this  way  and 
run  into  the  police.  I  was  going  around  Seattle  and 
Tacoma  and  cross  over  and  come  back  around. 

Q.  When  you  read  in  the  papers  that  you  had  killed 
her,  did  you  feel  satisfied  ? 

A.  Well,  yes,  but  I  was  afraid  there  would  be  blood- 
hounds after  me,  and  I  would  get  shot  down  in  the  road. 

Q.  You  weren't  worrying  so  much  about  her  as  you 
were  afraid  somebody  might  do  you  an  injury  ? 

A.  Well,  I  didn't  want  them  to  get  me  until  the 
job  was  completed  and  I  had  shot  myself. 

Q.  Did  you  think  there  was  somebody  else  inter- 
fering to  keep  her  from  marrying  you  ? 

A.     I  guess  there  was. 

Q.     Did  you  have  in  mind  to  shoot  any  one  else  ? 

A,     No. 

Q.  You  knew  she  was  engaged  to  marry  another 
fellow  ? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.     Was  that  what  made  you  decide  to  kill  her  ? 

A.  I  thought  she  gave  him  up.  Well  in  a  way  I 
did  and  in  another  way  I  thought  it  was  a  bluff. 

Q.  When  did  you  make  up  your  mind  to  get  these 
guns  —  on  the  day  of  the  killing .? 


THE   CASE  OF   FRED  TRONSON  79 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  You  knew  at  the  time  what  you  were  doing,  — 
what  you  were  getting  the  guns  for  ? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  You  got  the  guns  with  the  idea  that  if  she  re- 
fused to  marry  you  why,  then,  you  would   kill  her  ? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.     You  knew  what  you  were  doing  at  that  time  } 

A.  Yes,  —  I  don't  think  a  man  in  his  right  mind 
would  do  it. 

Q.  You  knew  that  it  was  wrong  to  kill  her,  didn't 
you  t 

A.     Yes,   but   all   I   was   thinking  was   about   her. 

Q.     You  knew  it  would  be  wrong  to  kill  her  ? 

A.     That's  what  the  law  says. 

Q.     You  realized  that  fact  at  the  time  ? 

A.     Not  as  much  as  I  do  now. 

Q.  You  were  in  possession  of  your  senses  and  you 
knew  it  was  wrong  to  kill  her  t 

A.     Oh,  yes,  it  was  wrong  to  kill  her  —  take  her  life. 

Q.  You  know  it  is  wrong  to  take  that  which  you 
cannot  give,  and  you  knew  at  the  time  that  you  were 
doing  wrong,  and  you  knew  that  when  you  went  over 
there  to  get  guns  .'' 

A.     I  didn't  take  it  very  serious  then  like  now. 


8o  THE   CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

Q.  Did  you  ever  drink  liquor  to  the  extent  of  getting 
drunk  ? 

A.     No. 

When  this  confession  was  read  to  the  jury,  Tronson 
leaned  over  and  asked  the  clergyman,  "Well,  what 
do  you  think  of  it  ? "  When  the  verdict  of  the  jury  was 
given,  he  did  not  understand  what  it  meant  and  asked 
to  be  told.  When  he  was  answered,  he  showed  no  appre- 
ciation of  its  significance,  but  remarked  that  there 
wasn't  so  much  of  a  crowd  out  as  at  the  trial. 

This  is  the  third  case  in  which  the  Binet  tests  have 
been  admitted  in  evidence  and  the  findings  in  accord- 
ance with  these  tests  practically  accepted.  No  one 
seems  to  have  denied  that  Tronson  is  an  imbecile.  He 
is  of  lower  grade  than  the  other  two  that  we  have  dis- 
cussed, and  enough  lower  so  that  his  defectiveness  was 
much  more  apparent  and  easily  admitted  by  all  of 
the  judges.  As  will  be  noted,  there  was  no  reasonable 
motive  for  the  crime.  In  his  own  words  :  "  She  wouldn't 
marry  me.  That's  why  I  killed  her  —  so  that  no  one 
else  could  have  her."  In  the  case  of  Gianini  we  are 
possibly  dealing  with  the  sex  impulse,  perhaps  hardly 
recognized  even  by  the  criminal  himself.  In  Tronson's 
case  we  have  that  impulse  definitely  recognized  and 
asserting  itself  and,  being  uncontrolled,  leading  to  an 


THE   CASE  OF   FRED  TRONSON  8i 

action  of  the  crudest  and  most  savage  kind.  Under 
other  conditions,  it  would  very  Hkely  have  shown  itself 
in  a  different  way.  If  Tronson  could  have  gotten  the 
girl  off  by  herself,  it  is  very  probable  that  he  would  have 
committed  violence  In  the  gratification  of  his  sex  Im- 
pulse. But  since  she  refused  to  marry  him  and  kept 
out  of  his  reach,  he  shot  her  down  in  order  that  "no 
one  else  could  have  her." 

It  is  unnecessary  to  discuss  the  case  further.  We 
need  nothing  more  to  convince  us  that  the  diagnosis  of 
imbecility  was  correct.  It  remains  only  to  point  out 
two  facts.  First,  that  this  man  has  been  an  imbecile  \ 
at  least  since  he  was  twelve  years  of  age,  that  he  could 
have  been  recognized  as  an  imbecile  and  cared  for,  and 
thus  this  atrocious  murder  prevented.  Second,  that 
there  are  hundreds  of  just  such  persons,  now  in  their 
youth,  who  are  potential  criminals.  Unless  their  men- 
tal condition  is  recognized  and  they  are  cared  for  in 
such  a  way  as  to  make  crime  Impossible,  many  of  them 
will  repeat  the  career  of  Tronson. 

Fred  Tronson  is  in  prison  for  life.  He  will  In  all 
probability  never  be  pardoned.  He  will  never  have  an 
opportunity  to  commit  another  murder.  But  that 
does  not  restore  the  life  of  Emma  Ulrich  and  it  is  small 
comfort  to  her  friends  and  relatives.     It  does  not  In 


82  THE   CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

the  least  remove  the  blot  upon  society,  which  has 
allowed  such  a  murder  to  be  committed.  Society 
should  have  taken  him  in  hand  twelve  years  ago.  It 
should  be  further  noted  that  Tronson  had  been  before 
v/the  Court  at  least  once  before  he  committed  this  crime. 
At  that  time  had  the  Judge  realized  that  he  was  deal- 
ing with  an  imbecile  he  might  have  sent  the  boy  to  an 
institution  for  the  feeble-minded  instead  of  simply 
ordering  him  to  leave  the  town.  Shall  we  learn  the 
lesson  and  take  care  of  the  other  Fred  Tronsons  who 
are  now  in  our  public  schools  and  on  our  streets  ? 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE    CRIMINAL    IMBECILE 

From  the  description  already  given  it  will  be  seen 
that  Roland  Pennington  is  very  different  from  Jean 
Gianini.  Both  are  imbeciles,  but  each  is  an  example 
of  a  special  type.  Gianini  is  of  a  nervous,  impulsive, 
irritable,  loquacious  type,  fond  of  show  and  excitement, 
a  braggart  and  a  coward,  with  an  excellent  memory,  a 
great  reader  —  particularly  interested  in  stories  of 
excitement  and  crime.  Pennington,  on  the  contrary, 
is  a  slow,  dull,  relatively  stupid  boy,  of  poor  memory 
and  slow  perception.  While  having  made  the  fifth 
grade  in  school  work,  he  has  done  it  slowly  and  with 
not  so  much  success  as  in  the  case  of  Gianini.  He  is 
not  so  much  given  to  talk  or  to  showing  off ;  is  some- 
what addicted  to  drink  and  is  exceptionally  fond  of 
playing  pool. 

Gianini's  confession  is  colored  by  his  desire  to  show 
off  and  shine  in  the  limelight ;  Pennington's,  on  the 
contrary,  is  a  plain,  unelaborated  statement  of  the  facts. 

83 


r 


84  THE   CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

He  is  driven  to  his  confession,  not  by  his  desire  to  show 
off,  but  in  self-defense.  His  colleague,  March,  is  try- 
ing to  throw  the  entire  responsibility  upon  him  in  order 
to  escape  from  any  condemnation.  In  the  face  of  this 
Pennington  is  prompted  to  tell  his  own  story.  He  is 
not  intelligent  enough  to  make  up  a  plausible  story 
which  would  incriminate  March  and  save  himself.  But 
in  telling  the  facts  as  they  occurred  he  incriminates 
himself  quite  as  much  as  March,  so  far  as  the  actual 
occurrences  are  concerned.  His  whole  conduct,  from 
the  beginning  of  the  crime  until  his  arrest^  is  that  of  a 
dull,  stupid  person.  He  does  not  even  wield  the  black- 
jack with  intelligence,  and  after  the  man  is  killed  by 
his  comrade,  he  takes  no  precaution  to  save  himself 
from  suspicion,  to  dispose  of  the  body  or  to  clean  up 
about  the  barn  and  remove  the  evidences  of  a  crime. 
And  finally,  when  it  comes  to  a  statement  of  the  case, 
he  apparently  makes  no  attempt  to  shield  himself,  but 
acknowledges  his  part  in  it,. although  that  part  was,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  so  slight  that  a  little  variation  in  his 
testimony  would  have  thrown  the  entire  burden  upon 
March  and  relieved  him  from  any  complicity  in  the 
matter. 

If  the  foregoing  statement  of  the  case  is  correct,  we 
ask  at  once,  how  it  happened  that  the  jury  did  not  see 


THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE  85 

it  in  this  light,  but  instead  brought  in  a  verdict  of 
"Guilty  in  the  first  degree"  ?  While  there  are  many 
elements  in  the  answer,  such  as  the  demand  of  the 
public  for  revenge  on  the  murderer  of  the  man  who  was 
more  or  less  of  a  favorite ;  a  hastily  drawn  jury ;  a 
hurried  trial,  etc.,  the  burden  of  the  explanation  falls 
back  upon  the  same  condition  which  we  discovered 
in  the  case  of  Gianini,  namely,  the  ignorance  of 
the  general  public  in  regard  to  this  type  of  feeble- 
mindedness.. Almost  every  one  thinks  that  he  knows 
an  imbecile.  We  have  so  long  considered  these  high — 
grade  cases  as  normal  but  vicious  persons,  that  it  is 
difficult  to  change  the  point  of  view  suddenly  and 
realize  that  they  are  not  responsible  for  their  deeds. 

This  failure  to  recognize  the  high-grade  type  of 
imbecile  extended  even  to  the_^xpert^"  in  the  case; 
for  whereas  there  were  three  who  testified  to  theTeeble- 
mindedness  of  the  prisoner,  there  were  four  or  five  who 
testified  to  his  normality.  These  were  four  general 
practitioners  of  medicine,  including  the  jail  physician, 
and  the  fifth,  a  professor  of  neurology  and  neuro- 
pathology. These  gentlemen  are  all  familiar  with 
what  we  should  call  the  low-grade  type  of  imbecile. 
They  were  perfectly  correct  in  declaring  that  Roland 
Pennington  is  not  a  low-grade  imbecile.     Not  one  of 


86  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

them  had  had  experience  with  the  high-grade  type. 
They  were,  therefore,  not  quaHfied  to  pass  upon  a  case 
of  this  kind.  It  was  as  though  four  general  practitioners 
had  been  brought  in  to  decide  a  case  of  obscure  insanity. 
Every  one  of  them  could  have  testified  that  he  had  had 
more  or  less  to  do  with  insane  people,  meaning  persons 
who  are  maniacal  or  strongly  melancholic  or  katatonic, 
but  what  would  be  the  value  of  the  testimony  of  such 
men  in  such  a  case,  for  instance,  as  that  of  Thaw  ? 

These  men  all  thought  they  knew  something  about 
high-grade  feeble-mindedness.  They  all  testified  that 
Pennington  was  a  normal  man.  Compare  this  with 
the  statement  of  Dr.  Martin  W.  Barr,  one  of  the  fore- 
most authorities  on  feeble-mindedness  in  the  United 
States  —  indeed,  in  the  world.  Dr.  Barr  says  {Alien- 
ist and  Neurologist,  November,  19 14,  page  367) ;  — 

"The  courts  simply  do  not  go  far  enough  back; 
they  fail  in  that  they  do  not  reach  the  inception  —  the 
root  of  the  matter.  They  often  punish  without  care- 
ful investigation  of  the  causes  from  which  criminal 
instinct  springs  —  the  environment,  family  history, 
inherited  tendencies,  physical  disability,  and  that  sus- 
ceptibility to  suggestion  which  makes  them  the  ready 
tools  of  the  vicious.  ^- — 

"  In  the  case  of  Roland  Pennington,  tried  in  Media 


THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE  87 

last  June,  for  aiding  in  the  murder  of  a  man,  it  was 
proven  that  the  boy,  although  almost  twenty  in  actual 
age,  yet  coming  from  a  neurotic  stock,  with  three  first 
cousins  imbecile,  had  mentally  only  attained  some  11 
or  12  years;  still  he  was  adjudged  responsible,  and 
murder  in  the  first  degree  was  the  verdict. 

"  Is  it  not  a  poor  law  that  first  permits  a  person  to 
commit  a  crime,  and  then  punishes  him  for  it,  not 
recognizing  that  an  ounce  of  prevention  is  worth  a 
pcJund  of  cure  ? 

"  Pennington  had  sufiicient  intelligence  to  compre- 
hend the  enormity  of  the  deed,  but,  susceptible  to 
suggestion  in  exaggerated  degree,  he  had  not  sufficient 
inhibition  to  resist  the  volitional  act. 

"  Early  recognition  of  his  mental  defect  and  separation 
would  have  protected  him  alike  from  tempter  and 
temptation." 

It  is  unfortunate  that  Dr.  Barr  did  not  testify  in  the 
case,  but  his  assistant  did  testify  and  was  understood 
to  express  Dr.  Barr's  views. 

It  was  unfortunate,  indeed,  that  men  who  really 
knew  so  little  about  the  type  of  case  before  them  were 
allowed  to  pass  as  experts  and  their  opinion  allowed  to 
carry  more  weight  with  the  jury  than  the  opinion  of 
those  who  have  spent  years   in    intimate   association 


88  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

and  study  of  the  problem  of  high-grade  imbecility.  It 
should  be  recognized  that  there  are  very  few  persons 
who  are  expert  with  this  type.  The  superintendents 
of  our  institutions  for  the  feeble-minded,  after  a  few 
years  of  experience,  have  a  knowledge  of  this  matter 
which  far  surpasses  that  of  any  physician  who  has  not 
had  institution  experience,  however  great  a  specialist 
he  may  be  in  nerve  diseases,  in  insanity  or  epilepsy. 
It  is  not  enough  to  find  out  that  a  physician  has  had 
some  experience  with  imbeciles.  The  real  problem  is  : 
Has  he  had  experience  with  this  high-grade  type  ^  Is 
he  able  to  pick  them  out  ?  Is  his  knowledge  as  well  as 
his  experience  confined  to  the  medium  and  low  grades, 
which  every  one  meets  ^  Failure  to  make  this  dis- 
tinction had  much  to  do  with  the  verdict  in  the  case  of 
Pennington. 

Another  element  in  the  result  was  the  failure  to 
make  clear  to  the  jury  the  precise  situation,  the  real 
point  at  issue.  The  defense  in  the  case  had  no  desire 
to  free  Roland  Pennington  from  all  the  consequences 
of  his  deed.  It  was  not  a  case  of  the  electric  chair  or 
freedom.  The  imbecile,  especially  one  who  has  shown 
the  tendency  toward  crime  or  willingness  to  be  led  into 
crime,  should  never  be  at  large  where  it  is  possible  for 
him  again  to  go  wrong.     On  the  other  hand,  it  is  ab- 


THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE  gg 

horrent  to  think  of  a  child  (in  mind)  going  to  the 
electric  chair  for  the  deed  which  he  committed  while 
under  the  influence  of  a  superior  intelligence,  or  while 
impelled  by  the  hidden  forces  of  his  nature  over  which 
he  had  no  control  on  account  of  his  weak  mind.  It 
should  have  been  made  very  clear  to  the  jury  that  what 
was  wanted  was  to  save  the  commonwealth  the  shame 
of  officially  putting  to  death  a  person  who  had  only  a 
child's  intelligence.  In  an  ideal  state  such  a  person 
should  doubtless  be  kept  in  an  institution  for  the 
feeble-minded  under  a  life  commitment,  unless  his 
impulses  are  such  that  he  proves  to  be  dangerous  to  the 
other  inmates,  in  which  case  a  different  kind  of  insti- 
tution should  be  provided.  Until  we  arrive  at  a  con- 
dition where  we  treat  such  persons  ideally,  one  cannot 
object  to  the  state  prison  for  life  for  the  imbecile  man- 
slayer.  This,  unfortunately,  was  not  made  very  clear 
to  the  jury,  and  it  seems  probable  that  many  of  them 
thought  that  their  verdict  was  either  to  condemn  him 
to  the  electric  chair  or  to  set  him  free.  Having  only 
these  alternatives,  one  can  perhaps  understand  their 
decision.^ 

Another  somewhat  nice  legal  point  was  involved  and 

'  See  Gianini  Case,  Defendant's  Request  to  Charge,  Nos.  XLII,  XLIII, 
Appendix,  p.  153. 


90  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

brings  up  a  matter  which  calls  for  some  discussion.  As 
already  stated,  March  had  been  convicted  largely  upon 
the  testimony  of  his  accomplice,  Roland  Pennington. 
If  now  the  jury  should  acquit  Roland  Pennington  on 
the  ground  of  imbecility,  what  would  be  the  eifect  of 
such  a  decision  upon  Pennington's  testimony  against 
March.  Every  one  felt  that  March  was  guilty  and 
consciously  guilty  and  should  be  punished  to  the  extent 
of  the  law.  To  bring  in  a  verdict  in  the  case  of  Pen- 
nington which  would  result  in  annulling  his  testimony 
and  thereby  taking  away  the  one  sure  means  of  con- 
victing March,  was  a  serious  matter.  One  may  well 
believe  that  the  jury  felt  that  it  was  safest  to  convict 
Pennington  of  murder  in  the  first  degree  and  thus  avoid 
raising  this  confusing  question. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  although  the  question  would  un- 
doubtedly have  been  raised  and  attempts  made  to  free 
March  on  the  basis  of  Pennington's  feeble-minded 
testimony,  yet  such  a  procedure  would  not  have  been 
warranted. 

Pennington,  as  we  have  claimed,  is  an  imbecile  with 
a  mentality  of  about  eleven  years.  We  have  a  right 
to  judge  him  largely  on  the  basis  of  an  eleven-year- 
old  child.  The  testimony  of  eleven-year-old  children 
is  often  admitted  into  court,  and  many  a  person  has 


THE  CRIMINAL  IMBECILE  91 

been  convicted  on  such  testimony*  It  Is  true  that  It  is 
a  somewhat  moot  question  as  to  how  much  credence 
should  be  placed  in  children's  testimony.  The  real 
criterion  in  such  cases  is  the  nature  of  the  child,  a 
matter  which  we  have  already  considered.  A  child 
may  testify  to  simple  facts,  and  may  be  relied  upon 
where  he  has  no  particular  interest,  where  there  cannot 
be  shown  any  tendency  or  desire  on  the  part  of  the  child 
to  show  off  or  to  say  something  for  effect  or  to  exercise 
childish  Imagination  and  Invent  a  large  story  for  the 
sake  of  the  pleasing  sound. 

It  Is  perfectly  clear  to  any  one  who  studies  the  con- 
fession of  Pennington  that  he  must  have  told  a  straight- 
forward story.  As  already  stated,  he  would  not  have 
Incriminated  himself  as  he  did  if  he  had  been  falsifying. 
He  is  not  the  type  of  person  that  runs  on  In  an  imaginary 
tale  without  regard  to  the  facts.  In  short,  his  testi- 
mony bears  every  evidence  of  being  entirely  credible. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  already  pointed  out,  Gianlni's 
testimony  Is  unreliable,  because  he  was  talking  for 
effect.  He  is  of  the  type  that  loves  show  and  notoriety. 
His  testimony  was  only  to  be  trusted  where  it  could  be 
corroborated  by  facts  or  the  testimony  of  others. 

Careful  study  of  the  testimony  and  the  nature  and 
the  character  of  the  child  will  almost  always  enable  one 


92  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

to  decide  very  accurately  as  to  how  much  credence  is 
to  be  placed  in  the  evidence.  In  other  words,  the  fact 
of  high-grade  imbecility  does  not  of  itself  make  the 
child's  testimony  acceptable  or  non-acceptable.  It 
must  be  judged  on  its  merits.  We  have  in  these  two 
cases  excellent  examples  of  the  trustworthy  and  un- 
trustworthy. 

The  testimony  of  Pennington  at  the  March  trial  was 
a  most  marvelous  performance.  To  those  unfamiliar 
with  high-grade  imbecility,  it  was  almost  unexplainable. 
Many  thought  that  he  must  have  been  very  carefully  and 
elaborately  coached ;  that  he  had  been  told  just  what 
to  say,  and  had  learned  his  lesson  well.  Those,  how- 
ever, who  know  the  imbecile  understood  perfectly 
what  was  happening.  This  eleven-year-old  boy  was 
telling  a  plain,  unelaborated  tale.  He  was  not  intelli- 
gent enough  to  try  to  escape  himself,  and  so  he  had 
nothing  to  hide  and,  consequently,  got  into  no  confu- 
sion. He  answered,  "Yes,"  "No,"  or,  "I  don't  know" 
with  a  wisdom  and  a  consistency  that  was  simply 
amazing,  and,  as  said,  could  only  be  explained  on  the 
understanding  that  he  was  telling  the  truth.  No 
amount  of  cross-examination  confused  him,  no  sudden 
coups  of  the  lawyer  for  the  defense  could  entrap  him. 
For  example,  when  asked  with  considerable  heat  on 


THE  CRIMINAL  IMBECILE         .        93 

the  part  of  the  attorney  why  he  had  forgotten  a  certain 
point  while  he  remembered  very  vividly  a  certain  other 
point,  the  witness  made  no  attempt  to  explain  ;  simply 
remarked  that  he  did  not  know.  In  truth,  he  did  not 
know.  Any  such  psychological  matter  was  as  far 
beyond  him  as  the  heavens.  Without  imagination, 
without  ability  to  reason  out  the  effect  of  his  answer 
on  his  own  future,  he  could  simply  answer  in  the  plain- 
est kind  of  "Yes"  or  "No"  as  he  knew  the  facts. 

With  these  considerations,  we  pass  on  to  consider  the 
larger  and  more  difficult  problem,  "Can  an  imbecile 
of  the  mentality  of  eleven  years  know  the  nature  and 
quality  of  his  acts  and  understand  that  it  is  wrong  ?" 


CHAPTER  V 

RESPONSIBILITY 

All  students  of  the  psychology  of  childhood  agree 
that  not  until  the  dawn  of  adolescence  does  reasoning  as 
such  begin  to  show  itself  in  the  child  mind ;  that 
judgment  and  foresight  and  self-control,  such  as  enable 
a  person  to  counteract  his  natural  impulses  and  make 
himself  fit  into  the  conventions  of  society,  are  practi- 
cally unknown  previous  to  this  age.  It  is  true  that 
many  children  are  taught  to  say  what  the  adult  alone 
can  feel  in  connection  with  such  matters.  But  as  for 
having  the  real  feeling  and  the  understanding  of  the 
situation,  we  seem  to  have  no  right  to  expect  it  before 
the  beginning  of  this  adolescent  period,  from  twelve 
to  fifteen  years  of  age.  Everything  points  to  the 
correctness  of  the  conclusion  that  during  this  early 
period  of  pre-adolescence  the  child  is  a  creature  of  im- 
pulse and  instinct  and  is  controlled  largely  by  counter- 
acting one  instinct  by  another.  For  example,  the 
instinct  to  love  and  obey  a  parent  impels  the  child  to 

94 


RESPONSIBILITY  95 

do  what  that  parent  says,  when  he  tells  him  not  to 
yield  to  some  impulse  which  would  lead  him  into 
trouble  according  to  the  canons  of  modern  society. 
Without  going  further  into  a  -discussion  of  the  point, 
which  would  necessarily  lead  to  many  philosophical 
considerations,  the  writer  may  express  his  conviction, 
born  of  a  study  both  of  normal  children  and  also  of 
mental  defectives  of  twelve  years  and  under  in  men- 
tality, that  persons  of  this  mentality  do  not  know 
much  about  right  and  wrong.  They  act  upon  impulse 
and  upon  instinct,  without  very  much  thought.  Even 
the  child  of  the  best  opportunity  and  the  most  elaborate 
training  in  a  good  home  may  quite  likely  not  know  the 
wrongfulness  of  an  act  of  homicide  in  the  sense  of 
having  a  real  feeling  of  that  wrong.  He  can  doubtless, 
as  already  stated,  say  that  the  thing  is  wrong,  because 
he  has  learned  that  this  is  the  right  thing  to  say. 

Let  us  turn  now  to  the  other  part  of  the  legal  phrase, 
"Does  such  a  person  know  the  nature  and  quality  of 
his  act?"  If  the  writer  understands  these  terms,  the 
first  may  be  translated  into  the  expression,  "Does  he 
know  what  he  is  doing  }  "  We  take  it  that  the  expression 
originated  in  the  attempt  to  cover  those  cases  where 
persons,  either  momentarily  or  permanently  deranged, 
literally  do  not  know  what  they  are  doing.     If  this  is 


96  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

correct,  then  one  cannot,  as  a  rule,  say  that  a  high-grade 
imbecile  does  not  know  what  he  is  doing.  He  is  not 
Hke  the  lunatic  who  acts  blindly  and  is  probably  no 
more  responsible  for  his  acts  than  a  person  walking  In 
his  sleep.  The  imbecile  is  not  in  this  condition.  He 
has,  so  to  speak,  full  possession  of  all  the  mind  that  he 
^iias  ever  had  and  that,  in  the  case  of  these  high-grade 
imbeciles  or  morons.  Is  certainly  sufficient  to  enable 
him  to  know  what  he  is  doing.  In  the  case  of  Jean 
Gianini,  the  writer  testified  that  in  his  opinion  he  knew 
what  he  was  doing.  He  knew  the  nature  of  his  act. 
One  cannot  speak.  It  is  true,  with  certainty  in  such 
cases.  It  Is  entirely  possible  that,  as  already  intimated, 
the  situation  at  first  may  have  been  a  simple  alter- 
cation or  discussion  which  finally  got  to  a  point  where 
the  anger  of  the  boy  was  aroused  to  such  an  extent 
that  he  acted  without  really  knowing  what  he  was 
doing.  However,  there  Is  no  more  argument  for  that 
theory  than  against  it,  and  without  definite  evidence 
on  the  question  It  is  probably  going  too  far  afield  to 
make  any  such  claims  of  immunity  on  that  ground.  We 
are  frank  to  admit  that  the  probabilities  are  high  that 
the  boy  knew  the  nature  of  his  act.  Did  he  know  the 
quality  of  his  act  .•* 

By  the  quality  of  a  thing  is  meant  that  which  dis- 


RESPONSIBILITY  97 

tingulshes  it  from   all  other  things.     This   implies   a 
complete  and  extensive  knowledge  of  the  thing  in  ques- 
tion.    To  know  the  quality  of  an  act  —  murder,   for 
example  —  means  to  know  all  of  the  elements,  forms, 
or  modes  of  being  or  action  which  seem  to  make  it 
distinct  from  all  other  acts.     To  know  the  quality  of  ' 
an  act  of  murder  is  to  know  that  it  is  unjustifiable ;   it 
is  to  know  that  it  differs  from  the  killing  of  a  rat  in  that 
diiferent  consequences  follow ;   that  human  suffering  is  ^ 
involved,  both  that  of  the  victim  and  of  the  victim's 
friends  and  associates.     It  is  to  know,  at  least  in  some 
vague  way,  that  human  society  could  not  exist  if  murder 
were  the  rule.     To  know  the  quality  of  an  act  of  murder 
is  to  know  enough  to  be  able    to  distinguish  it  from 
justifiable  homicide,  from  killing  in  war,  not  to  mention 
more  obvious  necessary  distinctions. 
\  Did  Jean  Gianini  know  the  quality  of  his  act  ?     On 
the  stand,  under  cross-examination,  the  writer  was  led 
to  express  the  opinion  that  he  did.     Later  study  of  the 
problem  and  consideration  of  the  circumstances  leads 
to  the  conclusion  that  this  was  erroneous.     Such  knowl- 
edge implies  mental  capacity  which  is  not  possessed  by 
a  boy  under  twelve  years    of  age.     It  involves  expe-  ^ 
rience ;    it   involves  abstraction,  which  is  notoriously 
lacking  in  such  persons.     If  there  is  one  characteristic 


98  THE   CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

more  noticeable  than  another  among  the  high-grade 
imbeciles  or  morons,  it  is  their  failure  to  deal  with 
abstract  ideas ;  to  draw  generalizations  from  specific 
instances. 
V  Did  Pennington  know  the  quality  of  his  act  ?  There 
is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  he  did.  Indeed,  in 
his  case  we  may  go  farther  and  hold  very  probably 
that  he  did  not  even  know  the  nature  of  his  act.  It  is 
easily  conceivable  that  he  struck  the  man  with  the  black- 
jack without  knowing  that  he  was  committing  murder, 
without  knowing  that  he  might  kill  him.  His  stupidity 
was  clearly  of  such  a  character  that  it  is  a  perfectly 
tenable  position  that  he  thought  he  was  to  strike  the 
man  and  stun  him  until  they  could  rob  him  and  escape. 

Did  Tronson  know  the  nature  and  quality  of  his 
act  ?  Using  revolvers  as  he  did,  it  seems  undeniable 
that  he  knew  the  nature.  He  was  familiar  with  re- 
volvers ;  he  knew  what  they  would  do.  He,  undoubt- 
edly, knew  that  he  was  killing  Emma  Ulrich.  That  he 
did  not  know  the  quality  of  his  act  is  equally  certain. 
■^  She  would  not  marry  him,  he  did  not  want  her  to  marry 
any  one  else,  and  he  had  no  conception  that  he  had  no 
right  to  put  her  out  of  the  way  so  that  she  could  not 
marry  another  if  she  would  not  marry  him. 

Again,   we  might   go   further  and  deeper  into   the 


RESPONSIBILITY  99 

philosophy  of  the  question,  the  logic  and  ethics  of  it. 
But  these  few  considerations  seem  sufficient  to  make 
it  of  the  highest  probability  that  persons  of  a  mental 
age  under  twelve  years,  like  the  normal  boys  or  girls  of 
the  same  age,  do  not  know  and  cannot  be  expected  to 
know  the  quality  of  their  acts.  And  this  is  sufficient, 
because  the  law  requires  no  more  than  a  reasonable 
doubt,  and  there  certainly  is  a  very  reasonable  doubt 
as  to  whether  such  persons  know  the  quality  of  an 
act  of  murder  and  know  that  it  is  wrong. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE    PUNISHMENT    FOR    CRIMINAL    IMBECILES 

In  the  foregoing  chapters  we  have  discussed  the 
problem  involved  in  these  murders  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  law  in  order  to  show  that  even  under  the  law, 
as  it  now  exists,  such  persons  are  not  guilty  of  murder 
in  the  first  degree.  In  the  present  chapter,  we  propose 
to  discuss  the  matter  from  another  standpoint  and  from 
a  different  angle.  It  is  not  now  a  question  of  responsi- 
bility or  of  some  kind  of  justice  to  be  satisfied.  Let 
us  face  the  practical  question  of  what  is  to  be  done  in 
these  cases. 

After  all,  what  we  want  is  protection  for  society. 
We  cannot  have  innocent  people  killed  in  accordance 
with  the  whim  of  the  irresponsible.  These  imbeciles 
have  killed  innocent  members  of  society.  What  shall 
the  living  do  to  prevent  these  particular  persons  from 
repeating  the  crime  and  to  prevent  other  imbeciles  from 
ever  committing  such  a  crime  ?  This,  of  course,  in- 
volves the  whole  problem  of  punishment  or  the  treat- 

100 


PUNISHMENT   FOR  CRIMINAL   IMBECILES    loi 

ment  of  the  wrongdoer.  Upon  one  thing  everybody 
is  agreed  —  we  must  make  it  impossible  for  these 
persons  ever  to  do  such  a  deed  again.  The  surest 
way  to  accomplish  this  is  to  destroy  them.  Dead 
men  commit  no  crimes.  Society  feels  safe  when  a 
desperado  is  killed.  If  we  can  agree  upon  this  solution, 
the  problem  is  easily  solved  and  further  discussion  is 
unnecessary.  But  society  is  not  at  one  on  this  ques- 
tion. We  are  already  seriously  debating  the  question 
whether  any  wrongdoer  should  ever  be  officially 
executed.  Indeed,  many  States  have  already  decided 
that  they  should  not  be,  and  imprisonment  for  life  has 
replaced  capital  punishment. 

It  is  somewhat  difficult  to  draw  a  line  of  distinction 
between  the  persons  involved  in  these  crimes  and  the 
so-called  responsible  murderers.  It  certainly  is  no 
great  loss  to  society  if  Tronson  is  put  out  of  the  way. 
The  same  is  true  in  varying  degrees  of  Gianini  and 
Pennington.  It  may  be  very  successfully  argued  that 
the  matter  of  responsibility  is  a  fiction  and  that  all 
persons  should  be  treated  alike,  either  all  executed  or 
none  executed.  Nevertheless,  at  the  present  time,  we 
do  draw  the  distinction,  and  many  feel  that  the  person 
who  has  full  power  over  his  action,  who  knows  the 
nature  and  quality  and  wrongfulness  of  his  act,  should 


I02  THE  CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

be  executed,  while  those  who  do  not  know  should  not 
be  executed. 

If  we  take  the  latter  view,  the  question  still  remains, 
What  shall  be  done  with  these  criminal  imbeciles  ?  The 
alternative  to  capital  punishment  is  incarceration  for 
life.  Here  at  least  we  find  a  distinction  between  these 
persons  and  the  normal  intelligent  wrongdoers.  Of 
all  persons  in  the  world,  the  criminal  imbecile  should 
be  placed  in  custody  under  conditions  that  will  forever 
make  it  impossible  for  him  to  repeat  his  offense.  The 
man  who  commits  murder  in  a  fit  of  insanity  may  re- 
cover from  his  insanity  and  be  a  useful  citizen  for  the 
rest  of  his  life.  The  man  who  commits  murder  under 
a  strong  impulse  of  anger  or  in  calm  meditation  as  the 
result  of  perverted  reasoning  may  recover  normal 
reasoning  and  be  a  useful  citizen.  This  is  not  true  of 
the  imbecile.  He  will  never  recover ;  he  will  never  have 
more  mind  than  he  has  now ;  he  will  never  be  free  from 
the  danger  of  following  the  suggestion  of  some  wicked 
person  or  of  yielding  to  his  own  inborn  and  uncontrolled 
impulses.  It  will  never  be  safe  for  him  to  be  at  large. 
This  is  so  obvious  that  it  is  highly  probable  that  the 
imbecile  once  committed  to  life  custody  would  never 
be  released,  and  even  that  there  would  never  be  any 
attempt  at  such  release.     When  these  facts  are  under- 


PUNISHMENT  FOR  CRIMINAL  IMBECILES    103 

stood,  the  public  will  undoubtedly  be  satisfied  to  have 
such  persons  imprisoned  for  life  or  committed  to  an 
institution  for  mental  defectives,  where  they  will  be 
constantly  guarded  and  prevented  from  doing  injury. 
This  was  well  brought  out  in  the  case  of  at  least  two 
of  the  persons  described  in  this  book.  In  the  case  of 
Jean  Gianini,  the  lawyer  made  emphatically  plain  that 
there  was  no  desire  on  the  part  of  the  defense  to  procure 
the  complete  liberty  of  the  defendant.  John  F.  Mcln- 
tyre,  the  counsel,  stated  clearly  to  the  jury  that  he 
had  no  desire  except  to  save  the  boy  from  the  electric 
chair,  a  punishment  which  he  considered  unjust.  He 
even  went  so  far  as  to  state  that  if  at  any  time  in  the 
future  efforts  should  be  made  to  secure  the  release  of 
this  defendant  from  any  institution  to  which  he  might 
be  committed,  he  himself  would  make  as  strenuous 
an  effort  to  have  the  boy  kept  In  custody  as  he  was 
now  making  to  save  him  from  the  electric  chair.  Ap- 
parently this  made  a  deep  impression  upon  the  jury 
and  went  a  long  way  toward  helping  them  to  return 
the  verdict  that  they  did.  On  the  other  hand.  In  the 
case  of  Roland  Pennington  this  point  was  not  made  so 
clear,  and  the  jury  and  the  prosecution  did  not  realize 
that  the  defense  only  wished  to  save  the  boy  from 
execution  and  would  be  quite  content  with  a  verdict 


I04  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

that  would  result  in  his  being  incarcerated  for  life. 
An  institution  for  feeble-minded  would  seem  at  first 
glance  to  be  the  logical  place  to  which  such  a  person 
should  be  committed.  But  no  one  need  seriously  object 
to  commitment  to  a  penitentiary  or  a  state  prison. 
Perhaps,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  an  imbecile  has  com- 
mitted crime,  that  he  has,  as  one  may  say,  begun  a 
habit  in  that  direction,  the  state  prison  is  the  proper 
place  for  him,  because  here  he  can  be  absolutely  con- 
trolled and  saved  from  any  future  acts  of  this  kind. 
This  is  precisely  what  happened  in  Tronson's  case. 
We  are  learning  in  these  days  that  the  old  adage, 
"An  ounce  of  prevention  is  worth  a  pound  of  cure," 
is  something  more  than  a  witticism.  These  are  days 
of  prevention  —  in  medicine  and  in  morals.  The  most 
important  part  of  our  problem  is  yet  to  be  discussed. 
It  is  true  we  must  come  to  some  decision  as  to  what  is 
to  be  done  with  these  persons  who  now  infest  society 
and  who,  because  of  their  imbecility  which  is  unrecog- 
nized, may  become  criminals.  But  vastly  more  im- 
portant, because  more  far-reaching,  is  the  problem  of  , 
how  to  prevent  imbeciles  from  becoming  criminalsi, 
We  may  save  the  Gianinis  and  the  Tronsons  and  the 
Penningtons  from  murdering  any  more  people,  but 
how  much  better  if  we  save  them  from  killing  anybody. 


PUNISHMENT   FOR   CRIMINAL   IMBECILES    105 

No  one  of  these  persons  had,  probably,  any  more  in- 
stinct to  kill  than  have  you  or  I.  As  children  in  years 
they  were  harmless  and  innocent.  They  could  have 
been  cared  for  and  led  into  paths  of  harmlessness  if  not 
of  usefulness.  All  of  them  could  have  been  recognized 
as  mental  defectives  long  before  they  arrived  at  the 
age  when  they  committed  crime.  As  dull  and  backward 
children  at  school,  they  were  at  once  suspicious 
characters.  Attention  was  called  to  them.  Careful 
examination,  such  as  is  now  possible,  would  have  re- 
vealed the  fact  that  they  were  mental  defectives  and 
as  mental  _dHectives_wer£--^€^t€JUiaLxxim-i«ats.  Then 
was  the '  time  that  they  should  have  been  carefully 
guarded  and  watched  and  saved  from  an  environment 
that  would  lead  them  to  prey  upon  their  fellows.  If  we 
wish  to  save  our  teachers  from  the  possibility  of  being 
murdered  by  their  pupils  or  our  daughters  from  being 
killed  by  their  wooers  or  business  men  from  being 
struck  down  by  the  blows  of  feeble-minded  boys,  we 
must  be  on  the  watch  for  symptoms  of  feeble-minded- 
ness  in  our  school  children.  When  such  symptoms 
are  discovered,  we  must  watch  and  guard  such  persons 
as  carefully  as  we  do  cases  of  leprosy  or  any  other 
malignant  disease.  For  fear  that  some  one  should  feel 
that  these  are  rare  and  exceptional  cases,  let  us  remind 


(i^  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

the  reader  that  the  best  estimate  and  the  result  of  the 
most  careful  studies  indicate  that  somewhere  in  the 
neighborhood  of  50  per  cent  of  all  criminals  are  feeble- 
minded. Whether  this  holds  for  murderers  is  indeed 
not  known.  But  many  persons  acquainted  with  feeble- 
mindedness recognize  from  the  newspaper  descriptions 
of  murders  that  many  of  the  murderers  are  feeble- 
minded. 

These  facts  certainly  warrant  us  in  taking  seriously 
the  problem  of  the  feeble-minded  and  the  criminal 
Imbecile. 

One  thing  more.  Careful  studies  have  shown  be- 
yond the  peradventure  of  doubt  that  at  least  two 
\|  thirds  of  these  mental  defectives  have  inherited  their 
defect ;  in  other  words,  that  they  belong  to  strains  of 
the  human  family  whose  intelligence  lies  below  that 
which  Is  required  for  the  performance  of  their  duties  as 
citizens.  This  points  to  a  further  precaution  necessary 
In  looking  toward  the  ultimate  prevention  of  feeble- 
mindedness and  the  solution  of  a  large  part  of  our 
prison  problem,  and  that  Is  the  prevention  0/  the 
further  propagation  of  this  race  of  defectives.  If  it  is 
true  —  and  there  is  every  evidence  that  it  is-  —  that 
children  are  daily  being  born  of  such  a  mentality  that 
it  requires  the  attention  and  thought  of  an  army  of  nor- 


PUNISHMENT   FOR   CRIMINAL   IMBECILES    107 

mal  people  to  prevent  their  growing  up  into  criminal 
lives  and  that  all  of  the  best  efforts  can  never  make 
them  able  to  take  their  place  in  society  as  useful  citi- 
zens, then  it  certainly  is  our  duty  to  see  that  such 
children  are  not  born.  How  this  is  to  be  accomplished 
has  not  yet  been  worked  out  in  detail.  The  coloniza- 
tion and  segregation  of  all  such  people  in  institutions 
where  they  will  not  be  allowed  to  propagate  is  one 
solution  that  is  proposed.  The  other  is  by  surgical 
interference,  to  render  such  people  physically  incapable 
of  propagating.  Probably  both  these  methods  and 
still  others  must  be  utilized  to  help  solve  this  problem. 
The  intelligence  of  men  is  often  measured  by  the 
amount  of  foresight  that  they  have.  The  little  child 
has  little  or  none,  as  is  also  true  of  men  of  low  intelli- 
gence. There  are  men  who  can  look  forward  and  plan 
their  affairs  for  a  few  months  in  the  future,  others  who 
can  look  forward  a  few  years,  still  others  a  lifetime, 
and  a  few  who  can  look  forward  into  the  coming  gener- 
ations. We  shall  demonstrate  a  high  degree  of  intelli- 
gence if  we  look  not  only  to  the  amelioration  of  present 
conditions  in  our  prisons  —  which  must  be  done  ;  not 
only  to  the  removal  to  more  suitable  environment  of 
those  persons  who  are  unjustly  confined  because  of 
their  irresponsibility  —  which  ought  to  be  done ;     if 


io8  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

we  not  only  see  to  it  that  from  now  on  persons  who 
come  before  the  court,  either  juvenile  or  adult,  are 
first  studied  to  discover  whether  they  are  mentally 
xesponsible  or  not,  which  is  of  utmost  importance ; 
<;^  but  if  we  go  still  farther  and  put  forth  efforts  to  deter- 
^i'^    jnin£jiow_rnajiy,--a»dr-^v^^  who  are  in 

^  the  public  schools  to-day  are  mentally  defective  and 
therefore  need  care ;  and  going  still  farther,  if  we  have 
studies  made  and  laws  passed  that  shall,  as  soon  as 
possible,  lead  to  the  reduction  in  the  birthrate  of  these 
mentally  defective  individuals.  A  certain  amount  of 
feeble-mindedness  we  must  expect  to  have  with  us  for 
long  years  to  come,  because  there  will  be  sporadic  cases 
and  cases  due  to  accident.  But  feeble-mindedness  as 
related  to  crime  may  be  exterminated  in  a  few  gener- 
ations if  we  will  but  use  our  intelligence  to  attack  this 
problem  at  its  root. 


>^' 


APPENDIX  A 
GIANINI   CASE 

HYPOTHETICAL  QUESTION  PROPOUNDED  BY  THE 
DEFENSE 

Assuming  the  following  circumstances  to  have  been 
established  by  the  evidence  in  this  case :  — 

That  the  defendant  was  on  the  5  th  of  December, 
1897,  bom  in  the  City  of  New  York;  that  his  father 
was  Charles  A.  Gianini,  who  also  was  born  in  said  city, 
and  the  paternal  grandfather  of  the  defendant  was 
bom  in  the  said  city  and  the  paternal  great-grandfather 
of  the  defendant  was  born  on  the  south  slope  of  the 
Alps  In  the  republic  of  Switzerland. 

The  defendant's  mother  was  born  in  the  City  of 
New  York,  her  maiden  name  being  Sara  Cecelia  Mc- 
Vey.  That  the  defendant's  mother  was  married  to  his 
father  when  she  was  about  twenty  years  of  age ;  that 
prior  or  previous  to  the  said  marriage  she  was  bright, 
vivacious,  stylish,  and  accomplished  In  music ;  that 
shortly  after  her  marriage  she  began  to  become  untidy 
in  her  appearance,  morose,  depressed,  and  indifferent. 

109 


no  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

At  the  time  of  the  birth  of  the  first  child  (Charles), 
to-wit,  on  the  13  th  day  of  November,  1891,  about 
eleven  months  after  her  marriage,  she  was  suifering 
from  melancholia  as  the  evidence  in  this  case  discloses. 

Assuming  that  the  child,  Charles,  lived  to  be  but 
seven  years  of  age  and  during  his  lifetime  did  not  learn 
to  speak,  but  merely  made  guttural  sounds;  that  he 
did  not  walk,  but  moved  about  when  seated  on  the 
floor,  pushing  himself  sidewise,  and  finally  shortly 
before  his  death  tottered  about.  His  death  occurred 
when  he  was  about  seven  years  old.  That  he  ate 
gluttonously  and  his  death  was  due  to  asphyxiation, 
choking  due  to  taking  in  trachea  foreign  matter  while 
vomiting  contents  of  an  overloaded  stomach. 

Assuming  that  after  the  birth  of  Charles  his  mother's 
melancholia  continued,  she  became  indiiferent  to  her 
child,  took  no  care  of  him,  and  said  that  while  she 
wanted  to  die,  she  was  going  to  live  forever ;  that  she 
also  said  she  thought  that  her  face  was  black  and  that 
she  was  a  negress,  that  she  would  not  go  into  the  street 
because  she  was  black. 

Assuming,  too,  that  she  became  addicted  to  the  use  of 
liquor,  first  lager  beer  and  subsequently  whisky  and 
brandy ;  that  she  made  pledges,  administered  by  priests, 
only  to  be  broken.     That  at  times  she  would  brighten 


APPENDIX  A  III 

up,  and  during  one  of  these  periods,  namely,  July  12, 
1894,  a  second  child,  called  Catherine,  was  born,  which 
child  still  lives. 

Assuming  that  thereafter  she  began  to  drink  again 
more  than  before ;  that  for  eight  months  preceding 
the  birth  of  the  defendant  she  was  drunk  a  great  many 
times,  that  she  was  found  in  a  drunken  stupor,  that  she 
was  brought  home  in  a  drunken  condition  by  detec- 
tives, on  which  occasion  she  had  with  her  her  second 
child  Catherine.  That  about  six  months  before  the 
birth  of  this  defendant  his  mother  was  drunk,  that  the 
seventh  month  before  the  birth  of  this  defendant  she 
was  drinking,  and  on  one  occasion  threw  her  husband's 
books  out  of  the  window  on  an  adjoining  roof,  during 
a  rain  storm.  And  in  the  eighth  month  before  the 
defendant's  birth  she  drank  and  the  same  condition 
prevailed. 

Assuming  that  from  the  June  before  the  defendant 
was  born,  which  was  on  December  5,  1897,  she  was 
attended  by  Dr.  Charles  N.  Weeks  of  New  York  City, 
and  he  found  her  depressed,  morose,  and  in  a  melan- 
cholic condition  most  of  the  time,  at  times  hysterical ; 
that  she  would  refuse  to  talk  to  him,  for  one  half  a 
day  at  a  time ;  that  she  would  refuse  to  answer  ques- 
tions, that  she  would  pay  no  attention  to  questions. 


112  THE  CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

and  that  she  was  also  inclined  to  stare  right  past  him ; 
that  she  would  weep ;  that  she  paid  no  attention  at 
all.  At  times  the  pupils  of  her  eyes  were  dilated,  at 
times  contracted,  their  expression  at  times  was  wild 
and  sometimes  vacant.  These  conditions  continued 
during  the  time  Dr.  Weeks  was  treating  her.  He 
prescribed  bromide  for  her  liquor  and  the  same  con- 
dition continued  after  the  birth  of  the  defendant. 

The  general  appearance  of  the  defendant's  mother 
was  untidy,  and  these  conditions  remained  unchanged 
after  defendant's  birth.  That  when  bom  the  defend- 
ant was  poorly  nourished,  under  weight,  weighed  about 
five  pounds,  and  was  inclined  to  be  emaciated ;  that  at 
the  time  of  the  death  of  the  first  bom  (Charlie),  to-wit, 
on  the  2 1st  day  of  March,  1899,  she  was  again  observed 
by  Dr.  Weeks,  and  then  she  was  absolutely  indifferent 
as  to  the  conditions  so  far  as  the  boy  was  concerned ; 
showed  no  grief,  and  her  general  condition  was  such  as 
he  described  at  the  time  he  was  treating  her. 

And  assuming  that  after  the  birth  of  the  defendant 
he  was  a  bottle-fed  baby,  not  nursed  by  his  mother,  and 
when  about  a  year  old  placed  in  the  care  of  Mrs.  Leigh, 
with  whom  he  remained  until  he  was  about  six  years 
old.  That  the  defendant's  mother  died  on  June  3, 
1899,  in  a  Sanitarium,  known  as  St.  Anne's  Retreat  in 


APPENDIX  A  113 

the  City  of  New  York,  the  cause  of  death  was  menin- 
gitis, alcoholic  heart  failure. 

Assume  that  up  to  the  time  the  defendant  was  five 
years  of  age  he  didn't  speak,  and  made  sounds  which 
resembled  yells.  Assume  that  about  1906  or  1907  the 
defendant's  father  took  him  from  Mrs.  Leigh's,  he  was 
then  able  to  talk  and  walk,  and  for  several  weeks  he 
was  taken  care  of  by  Mrs.  Hoberg  and  from  there  was 
taken  to  Lady  Cliff  Academy  on  the  Hudson,  where  he 
remained  for  one  term.  While  there  he  usually  ap- 
peared dirty,  but  seemed  to  be  making  some  progress. 

In  1907,  assume  when  the  defendant  was  ten  years 
of  age  he  went  to  live  in  the  Bronx,  where  he  lived  for 
two  years  and  attended  school  during  this  period.  At 
one  time  he  took  two  little  girls  to  a  piece  of  woods  and 
started  to  take  their  clothes  off,  and  when  asked  why  he 
did  it,  said  he  was  going  to  play  Indian  and  that  In- 
dians were  naked. 

On  one  Sunday  afternoon  he  was  observed  in  a  group 
of  children  eating  mud  pies,  and  the  children  were 
calling  him  ''Loonie"  and  were  telling  him  to  eat 
another  one. 

During  these  two  years  that  the  defendant  lived  in 
the  Bronx  he  was  observed  to  tease  children.  He 
would  take  a  little  boy's  wagon  and  run  away  with  it. 


114  THE   CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

He  would  take  his  hat  and  throw  it  over  a  neighboring 
fence.  He  would  take  the  caps  of  girls  and  toss  them 
over  fences,  pull  their  curls,  take  away  their  hoops 
when  they  were  rolling  hoops,  and  take  the  ball  away 
when  they  were  playing  ball.  He  would  do  these 
things  quite  often.  On  one  afternoon  he  was  brought 
home  with  a  gash  on  his  right  temple.  It  was  bleeding 
and  at  least  one  inch  in  length.  He  stated  that  he  had 
received  it  from  a  fall  from  a  stone  wall  while  he  was 
playing  "thief."  On  another  occasion  he  chased  a 
young  girl  who  was  stopping  at  the  house  around  the 
room  with  a  table  knife  because  she  was  trying  to 
correct  him  because  he  ran  home  from  school  without 
her.  He  did  not  attempt  anything  against  that  girl 
again,  although  she  remained  in  the  room  the  balance 
of  the  day. 

In  19 ID  defendant's  father  moved  from  the  Bronx, 
to  Poland,  and  brought  the  defendant  with  him,  and 
the  defendant  attended  the  Poland  School  which  he 
entered  in  April  of  19 10,  and  there  remained  until 
February  or  March,  191 3.  After  leaving  school  de- 
fendant worked  in  a  knitting  mill  in  Newport  from 
about  the  first  half  of  April  until  the  second  half  of 
May,  191 3,  when  he  ran  away  and  went  to  I  lion.  At 
I  lion  he  was  found  working  by  his  father  and  Mr.  Frank 


APPENDIX  A  ^5 

Newman  wiping  dishes  in  the  hotel.  He  was  then 
taken  home.  In  the  middle  of  August,  191 3,  the  de- 
fendant again  ran  away,  this  time  to  Albany,  and  stated 
that  while  he  was  there  he  had  been  shot  at  two  or 
three  times  by  a  policeman  and  was  arrested.  From 
Albany  the  defendant  again  went  to  Ilion,  where  his 
father  and  Frank  Newman  again  found  him  at  the 
same  hotel,  and  when  he  saw  them,  he  said  that  they 
were  "swindlers." 

At  another  time  the  defendant  ran  away  to  Herki- 
mer, in  the  summer  of  191 2,  and  he  stated  that  he  had 
gone  to  the  moving  pictures.  He  said  that  he  went  to 
the  store,  the  Poland  Union,  and  bought  a  can  of  beans 
and  a  bunch  of  bananas  for  his  trip  to  Herkimer.  He 
left  in  the  afternoon  and  did  not  return  until  the 
following  afternoon,  when  he  said  that  he  ate  the 
bananas  going  along  the  track  before  he  ate  the  beans 
because  he  was  afraid  the  bananas  would  melt.  He 
said  he  ate  the  beans  at  night,  opening  the  can  with  a 
nail,  and  ate  them  with  a  nail. 

On  another  occasion  in  Poland  he  chased  his  sister 
with  a  table  knife  although  she  had  not  done  anything 
to  him.  In  the  summer  of  1910  the  defendant  was  at 
Morehouseville,  and  one  day  while  there  he  was  fishing 
at  the  stream  that  passes   in  front  of  the  Mountain 


ii6  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

Home,  when  the  flies  and  the  punkles  were  biting  very 
fiercely.  He  stood  down  there  in  his  bare  legs  and 
bare  head  fishing  and  the  flies  biting  him  until  the 
blood  ran  down  his  face  and  neck  and  legs.  He  was 
fishing  there  for  fully  an  hour,  and  when  asked  if  the 
flies  had  bothered  him,  he  said  "No." 

In  191 1,  when  the  defendant's  father's  stepmother 
was  in  Poland,  the  defendant  was  overheard  to  say  to 
her,  "Why  didn't  you  marry  my  father,  I  would  like 
you  better  than  this  stepmother." 

When  the  defendant  was  fifteen  years  of  age,  in  the 
month  of  September,  191 3,  the  defendant's  father  had 
him  committed  to  the  St.  Vincent's  Industrial  School 
for  juvenile  delinquency,  presided  over  by  Christian 
Brothers,  where  he  remained  for  about  six  months, 
coming  home  in  February. 

A  few  weeks  before  the  commission  of  the  alleged 
crime,  he  was  observed  to  be  quarreling  on  Main 
Street  in  Poland  with  two  very  small  children. 

At  the  age  of  sixteen  years,  in  the  early  part  of  March, 
1914,  the  defendant  was  noticed  playing  with  a  toy 
railroad  car  and  building  some  tracks  with  some  little 
irregular  pieces  of  wood.  He  was  also  observed  to 
play  tag  with  children  apparently  from  two  to  four 
years  younger  than  himself. 


APPENDIX  A  117 

In  the  early  part  of  191 2,  the  defendant's  father 
observed  that  he  was  practicing  masturbation. 

The  defendant's  father  thereupon  slept  in  the  same 
room  with  him  in  order  to  watch  him.  The  defendant 
continued  this  practice  until  the  time  he  left  home  in 
the  spring  or  summer  of  191 3  and  admitted  that  he 
did  it  frequently. 

Assuming  that  on  the  25th  day  of  March,  1914,  Mrs. 
Ethel  Beecher  and  the  deceased  Lida  Beecher  met  the 
defendant  at  the  Post  Office  in  Poland,  and  the  defend- 
ant asked  the  deceased  when  she  was  coming  to  see  his 
father,  and  that  she  replied  that  she  did  not  know,  and 
the  defendant  said,  speaking  impatiently,  "Aw,  I  don't 
believe  that  you  intend  to  come  at  all ;  you  will  wait 
until  the  summer  time  and  go  home  and  then  it  will  be 
too  late."  That  they  spoke  about  school,  and  the 
deceased  said  to  the  defendant  that  it  would  be  better 
for  him  to  wait  until  the  beginning  of  another  term 
because  he  would  be  behind  the  other  pupils  in  his 
work ;  that  on  another  occasion,  on  about  the  middle 
of  February,  19 14,  the  defendant  came  on  an  errand  to 
get  yeast  to  the  place  where  the  deceased  and  Mrs. 
Beecher  were  boarding  and  the  defendant  then  said 
to  them  that  he  wanted  to  get  away  from  Poland, 
and  would  rather  be  in  New  York  in  the  Great  White 


ii8  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

Way ;  that  he  thought  he  would  Hke  to  act  in  moving 
pictures  as  he  did  not  Hke  his  home  and  he  hated  his 
father,  and  would  not  care  to  be  a  "sod-buster" ;  that 
the  deceased  asked  him  whether  he  would  like  to  re- 
turn to  school,  and  he  said  that  he  would,  but  that  his 
father  would  not  let  him ;  that  he  never  stole  but  once 
in  his  life  and  that  was  twenty-five  cents  from  a  lady 
in  New  York,  and  she  had  given  him  twenty-five  cents 
to  buy  some  candy  and  he  bought  the  candy  and  ate  it 
himself.  On  the  same  visit  the  defendant  asked  Mrs. 
Ethel  Beecher  if  there  was  a  state  prison  in  Rochester, 
and  she  told  him  no ;  he  wanted  to  know  if  there  was 
not  some  sort  of  a  reform  school  there.  She  said  that 
there  used  to  be,  but  that  the  reform  school  had  removed 
to  Industry,  and  he  asked  what  the  reform  school  was 
like  at  Industry  and  she  told  him  that  the  boys  lived 
in  cottages  under  the  care  of  a  matron,  a  man  and 
wife  generally,  and  that  was  as  much  as  she  knew 
about  it.  The  defendant  said  he  would  like  to  be 
there  and  asked  her  about  the  state  prison  at  Auburn 
and  different  prisons,  what  the  sentence  was  and 
whether  they  had  an  electric  chair  or  whether  they 
hung.  The  defendant  told  them  that  they  worked 
awfully  hard  at  Sing  Sing.  The  defendant  also  stated 
on  that  occasion  that  his   father   used  to  thrash  him 


APPENDIX  A  119 

for  stealing  apples  that  other  men  put  him  up  to 
stealing. 

Assuming  at  the  time  Mrs.  Ethel  Beecher  and  the 
deceased  and  the  defendant  were  talking  together, 
that  the  deceased  told  the  defendant  that  she  thought 
he  would  like  to  go  in  the  country  to  work  on  a  farm 
and  asked  him  why  he  did  not  continue  his  school 
work  another  year ;  and  that  her  tone  was  kindly  and 
her  whole  deportment  towards  him  on  that  occasion 
was  such  as  to  incline  one  to  believe  that  she  desired 
to  help  him  and  to  well  advise  him ;  and  that  the  de- 
fendant's conversation  concerning  prisons  and  industrial 
schools  was  such  that  it  caused  them  to  laugh,  at  the 
time  ;  and  that  on  other  occasions  when  the  defendant 
was  with  the  deceased  her  conduct  towards  him  was 
always  kindly  and  that  she  was  kindly  and  generously 
disposed  towards  the  defendant  and  showed  consider- 
able interest  in  him. 

Assuming  that  on  the  27th  day  of  March,  19 14, 
at  about  quarter  after  seven  the  'defendant  was 
observed  on  the  street  in  Poland  with  some  children, 
with  whom  he  had  been  seen  at  different  times  playing 
hide  and  seek  and  tag  and  I  spy,  and  that  he  caught 
hold  of  the  toque  of  one  of  the  little  girls  and 
pulled  it  down  over  her  face  and  that  he  poked  an- 


I20  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

other  one  of  the  little  girls  in  the  back  and  that  he  called 
a  girl  by  the  name  of  Grace  Palmer,  "Palmer  House," 
and  said,  "  Leonard  is  the  proprietor,  isn't  he  ? "  and  kept 
calling  her  Palmer  House,  and  that  he  was  snowballing 
the  girls,  and  that  while  he  was  engaged  the  deceased 
passed  him  on  the  street  and  said,  "Hello,  Jean,"  and 
that  he  then  joined  her  and  shortly  afterwards  was 
seen  to  come  back  with  the  deceased,  going  up  the  road 
towards  Buck  Hill.  That  later  in  the  same  evening, 
at  about  ten  minutes  to  eight,  he  returned  home,  showing 
no  trace  of  excitement  or  nervousness,  and  that  he  re- 
ceived some  books  of  wall  paper  to  be  delivered  to  a 
neighbor  and  that  he  took  these  books  and  threw  them 
so  that  they  fell  with  a  noise  on  a  neighbor's  veranda 
and  was  seen  running  near  the  railroad  station  and  later 
returned  home  in  the  vicinity  of  eight  o'clock,  showing 
no  trace  of  any  agitation,  excitement,  or  nervousness. 
That  he  took  oif  his  shoes,  put  on  a  pair  of  slippers, 
went  to  bed,  and  slept  quietly  all  night.  That  on  the 
following  morning  he  reported  for  work  at  Sam  Hutch- 
inson's as  usual,  worked  for  about  twenty  minutes  doing 
his  chores,  ate  his  breakfast,  and  nothing  unusual  was 
observed  about  him. 

Assuming  further  that  he  was  seen  going  along  the 
railroad  track  in  the  direction  of  Newport ;  that  he  met 


APPENDIX   A  121 

two  men,  one  by  the  name  of  Smith,  and  that  he 
shouted,  "Hello,  Smithy  "  ;  that  later  he  was  spoken  to 
by  a  man  named  Sweet  at  Newport  on  the  railroad  track 
about  four  miles  from  Poland,  and  that  when  Sweet 
caught  up  to  him  and  asked  him  where  he  was  going, 
he  said  to  Herkimer  to  see  a  moving  picture  show ; 
that  he  had  stolen  a  dollar  from  his  father ;  that  he 
accompanied  Sweet  to  Autenrith's  store  and  while  there 
the  murder  of  the  deceased  was  talked  about  in  his 
presence  and  that  he  ate  peanuts  and  smoked  a  cigarette 
and  asked  where  they  had  found  the  body  and  stated 
that  he  had  gone  to  school  to  her ;  and  subsequently 
\  was  taken  back  to  Poland  by  one  Frank  Newman,  and 
thereafter  was  turned  over  to  the  Sheriff  of  Herkimer 
County  and  one  of  his  deputies. 

Assuming  that  on  the  26th  day  of  March  he  asked 
an  acquaintance  by  the  name  of  Morris  Howe,  a  boy 
of  fifteen  years,  if  the  deceased  came  to  get  her  mail 
nights,  and  said  that  he  would  get  even  with  her ;  that 
on  Tuesday,  March  24th,  he  told  a  man  by  the  name 
of  Estes  Compo,  with  whom  he  was  working,  that  the 
deceased  had  tried  to  send  him  to  school  and  that  if 
he  had  a  revolver  he  would  kill  her,  and  asked  this 
same  man  if  he  had  read  of  a  murder  down  South,  of  a 
colored  man  killing  a  white  girl  and  laying  it  on  the 


122  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

superintendent  of  a  factory  and  that  the  man  was 
sentenced  to  the  chair  and  the  colored  man  confessed 
the  crime ;  that  on  the  preceding  night  he  had  been 
in  Compo's  room,  where  he  saw  a  revolver  and  a  knife, 
and  on  the  following  day  he  said  if  he  had  a  revolver, 
he  would  kill  the  deceased ;  that  about  a  week  before 
the  27th  day  of  March,  while  defendant  was  working 
for  Sam  Hutchinson,  he  told  a  boy  he  would  some 
day  put  an  end  to  the  deceased. 

Assuming  that  between  the  hours  of  seven  and  eight 
o'clock  on  the  night  of  March  27th,  19 14,  Miss  Beecher 
was  killed  at  a  dark  and  lonely  spot  on  the  Buck  Hill 
road  and  that  she  had  come  to  her  death  by  being  struck 
on  the  head  with  a  monkey  wrench  and  had  been  cut 
repeatedly  to  the  extent  of  about  24  times  with  a  knife 
in  various  parts  of  the  body  and  that  she  was  dragged 
from  the  place  where  she  was  killed  to  a  clump  of  wil- 
lows near  the  road  and  that  her  umbrella  and  hat  were 
found  the  following  morning  in  the  road  and  that  by 
following  the  track  where  her  body  had  been  dragged 
over  the  snow  the  body  of  the  deceased  was  found. 

And  assuming  that  on  the  morning  of  the  28th  day 
when  the  defendant  was  brought  to  Poland  he  was 
taken  to  a  house  of  a  Justice  of  the  Peace  and  was 
taken  into  a  room  by  the  Deputy  Sheriff  and  told  that 


APPENDIX  A  123 

he  was  suspected  and  was  accused  of  being  a  party  to 
the  crime.  That  after  he  was  completely  stripped  of 
his  clothing  he  stated  to  the  Deputy  Sheriff  that  he 
had  gone  to  school  to  the  deceased  and  had  trouble 
with  her  at  school  and  wanted  revenge  and  that  he  had 
met  her  the  day  before  near  the  Post  Office  and  asked 
her  to  go  up  to  his  house  and  see  his  folks  about  having 
him  go  to  school  again,  and  that  the  deceased  told  him 
that  she  would  go  the  next  night.  That  the  next  night 
he  did  meet  her  near  the  hotel  and  she  said  that  she  was 
ready  to  go  up.  They  walked  up  the  street,  and  when 
they  got  near  his  father's  house,  the  defendant  told  her 
that  his  father  did  not  live  there,  that  they  had  moved  up 
the  hill,  that  he  then  stated  in  detail  how  he  committed 
the  crime  and  disposed  of  the  body  and  what  he  did 
with  the  wrench  and  the  knife.  That  he  said,  *'You 
would  not  think  any  one  could  do  a  job  as  quick  as 
that."  He  said  he  supposed  they  would  talk  insanity, 
but  he  was  not  any  more  insane  than  the  Deputy 
Sheriff  was,  and  he  did  not  want  them  to  talk  about  it. 

He  also  said,  "  Gillette  got  the  chair,  didn't  he  ?  "  and 
upon  the  Deputy  Sheriff  replying,  "Yes,"  the  defend- 
ant said,  "  He  had  no  reason  to  kill  the  girl,  but  I  did ; 
I  wanted  revenge." 

That  at  the  same  time  the  defendant  signed  a  sworn 


124  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

statement  before  the  Justice  of  the  Peace,  in  which  he 
stated  that  he  went  to  school  to  Lida  Beecher,  and  had 
trouble  with  her  and  wanted  revenge ;  that  he  was  not 
afraid,  and  when  he  got  home,  he  was  just  as  happy  as 
he  ever  was,  and  did  not  think  anything  about  it,  as 
he  thought  he  had  revenge ;  that  at  the  time  he  made 
these  statements  he  was  cool  and  quiet  and  spoke 
connectedly ;    that  he  was  not  nervous  or  excited. 

Assuming  that  the  defendant  had  not  attended  the 
Poland  school  since  February  or  March,  1913,  and  that 
while  there  he  had  studied  under  the  deceased  for  about 
one  year,  and  that  during  this  period  the  only  punish- 
ment he  had  received  from  the  deceased  was  a  seat 
facing  the  wall  with  his  back  towards  the  other  pupils, 
and  was  occasionally  sent  upstairs  to  the  Professor  of 
the  school  for  punishment.  And  that  the  deceased 
had  always  manifested  a  friendly  interest  in  him,  was 
mild,  kind,  gentle,  and  good  to  him. 

And  further  assume  that  when  he  left  school,  he  was 
in  the  sixth  grade. 

Assume  that  he  had  frequently  been  detected  in 
telling  lies,  that  he  had  spoken  of  hatred  of  his  father, 
that  he  manifested  no  affection  towards  him,  referring 
to  his  father  as  "Old  Man"  and  "Him."  That  on 
the  morning  of  the  28th  when  he  was  being  brought 


APPENDIX  A  125 

back  to  Poland  by  Newman,  Newman  stated  to  him, 
"You  have  got  something  beside  skipping  out  now 
staring  you  in  the  face,"  to  which  he  replied,  "They 
can't  give  me  but  ten  years  "  ;  he  used  no  words,  when 
informed  it  might  be  a  long  time,  that  expressed  fear 
or  fright ;  and  when  he  was  informed  that  he  had  murder 
staring  him  in  the  face,  he  acted  no  different  than  ordi- 
nary. 

That  less  than  a  year  before  the  birth  of  Charles,  the 
first  child,  the  defendant's  mother  suffered  from  an 
attack  of  diphtheria,  for  which  she  was  treated  by  Dr. 
Quinlan. 

Further  assume  that  in  the  summer  of  1910,  at 
Morehouseville,  while  quarreling  with  a  little  boy 
named  Arthur  Jones,  the  defendant  said  he  would  go 
up  to  his  father's  room  and  get  his  hunting  knife  and 
kill  him. 

That  while  the  defendant  was  at  St.  Vincent's 
Industrial  School  for  juvenile  delinquency,  at  work 
in  the  laundry,  he  told  Mr.  Minor  that  if  his  father 
didn't  get  him  out  in  February,  he  would  burn  his 
father's  buildings  when  he  got  out. 

Now,  doctor,  assuming  all  these  facts  to  have  been 
proven  in  this  case,  from  your  experience  in  the 
treatment  of  and  knowledge  of   imbeciles  and  idiots, 


126  THE   CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

from  your  skill  and  expert  knowledge,  can  you  express 

an  opinion  concerning  the  mental  condition  of  Jean 

Gianini  at  the  time  of  the  killing  of  Lida  Beecher,  on 

the  27th  day  of  March,  1914  ? 

By  Mr.  Thomas  :  If  the  Court  please,  I  object  to  the 
question  as  improper  in  form  and  that  it  concludes 
with  assuming  all  these  facts  to  have  been  proven 
in  this  case,  and  that  it  is  not  an  inquiry  which  can  be 
properly  permitted  to  be  put  to  the  witness  here. 
That,  in  addition,  it  does  not  correctly  state  the  evi- 
dence, and  that  especially  this  part  of  the  question 
is  improper  —  "That  she  showed  no  grief,  and  her 
general  condition  was  such  as  he  described  at  the 
time  he  was  treating  her,"  referring  to  Dr.  Weeks, 
and  further  it  assumes  incorrectly  the  time  that 
the  defendant  encountered  Miss  Beecher,  near  the 
Post  Office  on  the  27th  day  of  March,  1914,  which  is 
stated  here  to  be  about  a  quarter  after  seven. 

By  Mr.  Hirsch :  What  time  do  you  say  it  was,  Mr. 
Thomas  ? 

By  Mr.  Thomas  :  The  proof  varies  from  seven  to  seven 
six.  And  it  is  incorrect  in  assuming  facts  not  es- 
tablished upon  the  evidence,  that  he  cut  her  re- 
peatedly to  the  extent  of  about  twenty-four  times 
with  a  knife ;  and  in  those  respects  to  which  I  have 


APPENDIX  A  127 

called  your  Honor's  attention,  the  question  is  im- 
proper, in  that  it  assumes  facts  not  proven,  that  it 
is  improper  in  form,  and  the  concluding  paragraph, 
with  reference  to  which  I  have  called  your  Honor's 
attention,  is  improper  and  incompetent ;  and  that 
the  question  is  incompetent  in  that  it  does  not  call 
upon  the  witness  to  express  an  opinion  as  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  defendant  of  right  and  wrong,  or 
his  knowledge  of  the  nature  and  quality  of  the  act 
in  killing  the  deceased. 

By  Mr.  Mclntyre :    That  is  a  question,  if  your  Honor 
please,  which  was  passed  upon  yesterday. 

By  the  Court :   I  suppose  it  is  preliminary  to  some  ex- 
tent, as  far  as  this  information  is  concerned. 

By  Mr.  Mclntyre  :  It  is  precisely  the  same  as  yesterday, 
but  the  question  has  had  some  additions. 

By  the  Court :   Was  that  indicated  by  the  last  part  of 
it.? 

By  Mr.  Mclntyre  :   Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Thomas  :   He  should  be  asked,  "Can  you  now 
form  an  opinion  assuming  all  these  facts  ?"  .  .  . 
Q.    Now,  Doctor,  assuming  all  these  facts  contained 

in  the  hypothetical  question  to  have  been  established 

by   evidence    in  this    case,    from    your   experience    in 

the  treatment  and  knowledge  of  imbeciles  and  idiots, 


128  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

from  your  knowledge  and  skill  as  an  expert,  can  you 

express  an  opinion  as  to  the  condition  of  Jean  Gianini 

at  the  time  of  the  killing  of  Lida  Beecher  on  the  27th 

day  of  March,  1914  ? 

Same  objection 

By  the  Court :    Objection  overruled.     He  may  answer. 
A.    I  can. 
Q.    What  is  your  opinion  ? 

Same  objection. 

By  the  Court :  I  think  it  should  conform  now  to  the 
language  of  the  statute,  shouldn't  it  ? 

By  Mr.  Mclntyre  :  Well,  I  have,  your  Honor ;  I  first 
asked  him  if  he  could  express  that  opinion.  Now 
if  he  doesn't  express  an  opinion  that  comes  within  the 
provisions  within  the  statute,  why  then  of  course  his 
opinion  is  incompetent  in  this  case.  Now  let's  look 
at  the  code.     Will  you  give  me  the  section,  please  ? 

Section  11 20. 

"Offense  committed  by  an  idiot  or  lunatic.  An 
act  done  by  a  person  who  is  an  idiot,  imbecile,  lunatic, 
or  insane  is  not  a  crime.  A  person  cannot  be  tried, 
sentenced  to  any  punishment,  or  punished  for  a  crime 
while  he  is  in  a  state  of  idiocy,  imbecility,  lunacy  or 
insanity,  or  is  incapable  of  understanding  the  proceeding 


APPENDIX  A  129 

or  making  his  defense.  A  person  is  not  excused  from 
criminal  liability  as  an  idiot,  imbecile,  lunatic,  or  insane 
person  except  upon  proof  that  at  the  time  of  the  com- 
mitting of  the  alleged  criminal  act  he  was  laboring  un- 
der such  a  defect  of  reason  as  not  to  know  the  nature 
and  quality  of  the  act  he  was  doing  or  know  the  nature 
of  the  act  as  wrong." 
By  the  Court :    Well,  now,  my  suggestion  is  why  not 

embody  that  in  your  question. 
By  Mr.  Mclntyre :    That  is  the  second  question,  your 

Honor.   .  .  . 

Q.  I  asked  you  what  was  your  opinion  concerning 
his  mental  condition. 

A.    That  he  is  an  imbecile. 

Q.  Now,  Doctor,  assuming  that  all  the  acts  recited 
in  the  hypothetical  question  to  have  been  estab- 
lished by  evidence,  to  be  true,  in  conjunction  with 
the  physical  and  mental  examination  made  by  you 
in  the  County  Jail  on  the  17th  day  of  May  this 
year,  —  from  your  experience  and  your  knowledge 
of  imbeciles  and  idiots,  in  your  opinion  was  Jean 
Gianini  at  the  time  of  the  killing  of  Lida  Beecher 
in  such  a  mental  condition  as  to  know  the  nature 
and  quality  of  the  act  he  was  doing  or  that 
the  act  was  wrong  ? 


I30  THE   CRIMINAL    IMRF.CILK 

By  A4r.  Thomas  :  1  object  to  it  as  improper  in  form  and 
copulative. 

Objection  overruled. 
Q.   Your  opinion,  Doctor  ? 
A.   He  was  not  in  such  condition. 


APPENDIX   B 
GIANINI  CASE 

HYPOTHETICAL   QUESTION    PROPOUNDED    BY   THE 
PROSECUTION 

Q.  Doctor,  kindly  assume  that  the  defendant  had 
been  a  pupil  taught  by  Lida  Beecher  in  the  public 
school  at  Poland  and  harbored  against  her  a  desire  for 
revenge  because  she  had  punished  him  ;  that  he  stated 
to  people  of  his  acquaintance  that  he  would  get  even 
with  her;  that  on  Tuesday,  March  24th,  1914,  he 
stated  to  a  man  with  whom  he  was  working  that  if  he 
had  a  revolver  he  would  shoot  her ;  that  several  days 
previously  he  had  this  wrench,  Ex.  45,  in  his  possession 
and  stated  to  a  man  who  asked  him  what  he  was  going 
to  do  with  it,  that  he  had  use  for  it ;  that  he  met  Miss 
Beecher,  who  was  a  young  lady  about  twenty  years 
old,  five  feet  three  inches  in  height,  weighing  about  126 
pounds,  wearing  upon  the  head  this  cap,  Ex.  26,  and 
as  an  outer  garment,  this  raincoat,  Ex.  29  (showing 
to    witness),   Wednesday,    March    25th,     1914,   about 

>3i 


132  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

seven  p.m.  in  the  Post  Office  at  Poland,  Post  Office  in 
the  village  of  Poland,  the  location  of  which  is  indicated 
on  this  map,  Ex.  i,  to  which  I  now  call  your  atten- 
tion (indicating) ;  walked  with  her  and  Miss  Clark,  a 
teacher,  from  the  Post  Office  along  Cold  Brook  Street 
to  a  point  on  the  southerly  side  of  the  street  opposite 
the  residence  of  James  D.  Countryman,  the  location 
of  which  is  also  shown  on  the  map  at  a  point  to  which  I 
now  call  your  attention  (indicating),  and  that  during 
that  walk  the  defendant  asked  Miss  Beecher  when  she 
was  coming  up  to  see  his  father,  and  upon  receiving 
the  answer  that  she  did  not  know,  said,  "Aw,  I  don't 
believe  you  intend  to  come  at  all ;  you  will  wait  until 
summer  time  and  go  home  and  then  it  will  be  too  late"  ; 
that  on  the  following  evening,  Thursday,  he  again  met 
Miss  Beecher  at  or  near  the  Post  Office  and  asked  her 
to  go  up  to  his  house  and  see  his  folks  about  going  to 
school  and  she  replied  that  she  could  not  that  night, 
that  she  was  going  to  prayer  meeting,  that  she  would 
go  the  next  night ;  that  on  the  following  day,  Friday, 
he  provided  himself  with  the  knife,  Ex.  48,  for  the 
occasion,  and  with  the  intention  of  killing  her,  sharp- 
ened it  for  that  purpose ;  that  he  met  Miss  Beecher 
about  seven  p.m.  on  the  evening  of  Friday,  March 
27th,  near  the  Post  Office  and  walked  with  her  along 


i 


APPENDIX   B  133 

the  south  side  of  Cold  Brook  Street  to  the  foot  of  Buck 
Hill,  which  Buck  Hill  road  is  also  shown  on  this  map, 
a  distance  of  2006  feet ;  that  they  then  proceeded 
together  along  up  Buck  Hill,  he  getting  her  to  accom- 
pany him  by  telling  her  that  his  father  lived  up  over 
the  hill,  had  moved  up  there  two  or  three  weeks  before  ; 
that  they  went  on  part  way  up  the  hill,  and  Miss 
Beecher  hesitated  and  said  it  was  farther  up  than  she 
thought  it  was,  she  did  not  think  she  would  go  any 
farther,  and  the  defendant  said  to  her,  "  It  is  not  but  a 
little  ways  farther  " ;  that  when  they  got  to  a  point  on 
the  hill  distant  about  4198  feet  from  the  Post  Office, 
she  hesitated  and  said,  "It  is  dark  and  I  see  no  houses, 
no  light,  don't  think  I  will  go  any  farther,  will  write 
your  father  a  letter  in  regard  to  this  school  matter"; 
that  as  she  stopped  he  stepped  back  of  her,  hit  her  on 
the  head  with  this  monkey  wrench,  Ex.  45,  which 
weighs  2  pounds  y^f  ounces,  which  I  now  show  to 
you,  he  at  that  time  having  as  an  outer  garment  this 
coat,  and  wearing  this  shirt,  Ex.  49,  which  I  now 
show  to  you ;  knocking  her  down,  he  hit  her  twice 
with  it  after  she  was  down ;  that  when  he  first  hit  her 
with  the  wrench,  she  did  not  cry  out  but  moaned  ;  that 
he  then  threw  the  wrench  up  over  the  fence  on  to  the 
top  of  the  bank,  about  35  feet ;    that  it  was  so  dark  he 


134  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

could  not  see ;  took  the  knife,  Ex.  48,  and  as  she  was 
lying  on  the  ground,  hit  her  with  it  several  times  to  be 
sure  to  finish  her,  inflicting  punctured  wounds,  one  on 
the  back  of  the  neck  just  below  the  hair  line  f  of  an 
inch  in  length,  one  on  the  left  side  of  the  neck  about  J 
of  an  inch  long,  cutting  a  hole  in  the  external  carotid 
artery  3  inches  above  the  bifurcation  of  the  common 
carotid  artery ;  that  he  then  grabbed  the  body,  which 
was  face  down,  by  the  right  foot  and  dragged  it  across 
the  road  under  a  barbed-wire  fence,  down  the  hill  back 
of  a  bush  to  the  swale ;  that  he  took  hold  of  the  right 
foot  because  he  did  not  want  to  get  blood  on  his  hands 
so  that  his  finger  prints  could  be  taken ;  that  he  ran 
immediately  from  the  body  to  the  Buck  Hill  road  and 
came  out  on  to  it  a  few  rods  nearer  Poland  than  the 
point  where  he  dragged  the  body  under  the  fence,  ran 
down  the  road  some  distance,  and  a  team  or  sleigh 
came  along  and  he  stopped  running  and  waited  until 
after  that  team  got  by  him  ;  that  he  reached  his  father's 
house,  which  is  shown  on  this  map,  Ex.  i,  and  the 
location  of  which  I  call  your  attention  to  (indicating),  at 
7 :  30  and  would  have  reached  it  sooner  if  he  had  not 
fallen  down  four  or  five  times  on  the  way  home ;  that 
he  went  into  the  house  and  put  the  knife,  off  fjom  which 
he  had  wiped  the  blood  in  the  snow,  in  the  pantry 


APPENDIX   B  135 

drawer ;  that  he  was  sent  on  an  errand  to  the  house 
of  Thomas  Owens,  on  Cold  Brook  Street,  which  is  also 
shown  on  this  map,  Ex.  i,  to  the  location  of  which  I 
now  call  your  attention  (indicating),  to  return  some 
books  of  samples  of  wall  paper,  and  to  give  Mr.  or 
Mrs.  Owens  a  one-dollar  bill  and  a  soap  order,  to  which 
it  was  pinned ;  that  he  ran  down  the  street,  threw  the 
books  on  to  the  veranda  floor  near  the  kitchen  door, 
ran  down  Cold  Brook  Street  to  South  Main  Street, 
and  tried  to  get  the  freight  train  which  passed  south 
on  the  M.  &  M.  railroad  ;  that  he  ran  back  to  his  father's 
house  and  arrived  there  a  little  after  eight,  took  off  his 
shoes,  put  on  his  slippers,  read  the  newspaper  a  little 
while,  and  went  to  bed  ;  that  he  arose  about  six  o'clock 
the  next  morning ;  left  his  father's  house,  went  to  Sam 
Hutchinson's,  by  whom  he  was  employed,  and  whose 
residence  is  also  shown  on  this  Ex.  i,  at  the  location  to 
which  I  now  call  your  attention  (indicating),  went  to 
the  barn,  assisted  in  doing  the  chores,  went  in  to  break- 
fast, said  nothing,  left  there  the  coat,  Ex.  41,  which 
was  then  substantially  in  the  same  condition  as  it  is 
now,  and  to  its  condition,  especially  on  the  back,  I  call 
your  attention,  and  this  being  the  coat  which  he  wore 
the  evening  before,  which  I  now  hand  to  you  and  call 
your  attention  to  (indicating)  the  condition  of,  put  on 


136  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

another  coat,  and  started  down  the  railroad  track  to- 
wards Herkimer,  which  is  on  the  line  of  the  New  York 
Central  and  Hudson  River  railroad,  and  some  fourteen 
miles  from  Poland,  intending  then  to  go  away  from 
Poland  ;  that  he  was  apprehended  at  Newport,  a  place 
distant  about  four  miles  from  Poland  and  between 
there  and  Herkimer,  and  brought  back  in  a  cutter  by 
Mr.  Newman,  whom  he  had  known  for  several  years ; 
that  on  the  drive  from  Newport  to  Poland  Newman 
asked  him  if  he  had  heard  what  happened  at  Poland, 
and  defendant  replied  he  hadn't ;  when  asked  if  he  had 
seen  anything  of  Miss  Beecher  the  night  before,  said 
he  had  not ;  when  asked  by  Newman  if  he  had  heard 
that  Miss  Beecher  was  murdered  or  killed,  defendant 
said,  "No,"and  on  Newman's  saying,  "They  are  looking 
for  you  for  it,"  defendant  said,  "They  can't  give  me  but 
ten  years,  can  they?";  that  as  they  drove  into  the 
village  of  Poland  and  turned  from  South  Main  Street 
into  Cold  Brook  Street,  near  the  Post  Office,  there 
were  some  rigs  coming  down  the  hill,  and  defendant 
said,  "They  are  coming  off  the  hill  with  her  now"; 
that  in  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day  he  voluntarily 
made,  signed,  and  swore  to  the  following  statement 
with  reference  to  the  matter.^ 

*  For  statement  see  p.  9. 


APPENDIX   B  137 

State,  Doctor,  basing  your  reply  upon  the  hypothesis 
stated  in  the  question,  whether  or  not,  in  your  opinion, 
the  defendant,  at  the  time  he  struck  Miss  Beecher  with 
the  wrench,  understood  that  he  had  no  right  to  do  it  ? 
Mr.    Mclntyre :      Don't    answer.     We   object    to    the 
question  in  that  it  only  recites  the  revolting  details 
of  the  alleged  crime  and  that  when  the  question  was 
being  propounded  to  the  witness   upon  the  stand, 
counsel  for  the  State  exhibited  the  knife,  the  wrench, 
the  coat,   the  hat,   and  other  things  in  evidence  in 
rather  a  dramatic  way  before  the  jury. 
We   object  to    the  question  upon  the   ground  that  it 
does    not  contain  all  the    essential  features  in   this 
case  bearing  upon  the  crime. 
We  object  to  the  question  upon  the  ground  that  the 
hypothetical  question  fails  to  include  the  condition 
of  the  defendant's  mother  at  the  time  of  his  birth ; 
it  fails  to  include  the  fact  that  the  first  child  was  an 
idiot  during  his  lifetime  ;    it  fails  to  disclose  the  con- 
duct and  deportment  of  the  defendant  from  the  time 
of  his  birth  down  to  the  commission  of  this  crime. 
We  submit  respectfully  that  the  hypothetical  question 
is  a  garbled  statement  of  that  which  has  transpired 
during  this  case  and  can  have  but  one  effect  —  to 
bias  and  prejudice  the  minds  of  the  jurors.     And  I 


138  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

submit  It  is  incompetent,  immaterial  and  irrelevant 

and  improper,  in  addition. 
The  Court :    Objection  overruled. 
Mr.  Mclntyre  :    Exception,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  got  the  conclusion,  the  concluding 
portion  of  my  question  in  mind  ? 

^.    Would  you  repeat  it  ^ 

Q.  Yes.  State,  Doctor,  basing  your  reply  upon  the 
hypothesis  stated  in  the  question,  whether  or  not,  in 
your  opinion,  the  defendant,  at  the  time  he  struck 
Miss  Beecher  with  the  wrench,  understood  that  he 
had  no  right  to  do  it. 

A.  I  cannot  get  any  evidence  from  the  facts  recited 
there  to  enable  me  to  determine. 

Q.  Well,  can  you  determine  from  this  question  an 
opinion  as  an  expert  ? 

A.    No,  I  cannot. 


APPENDIX  C 
GIANINI  CASE 


defendant's  request  to  charge 


Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that,  in  determining  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  de- 
fendant of  the  offense  charged  in  the  indictment,  the 
jury  are  to  consider  only  the  evidence  of  the  case  and 
are  to  disregard  any  statement  made  during  the  course 
of  the  trial,  by  counsel  or  the  Court,  and  are  not  to  be 
influenced  or  governed  by  any  expression  of  opinion  or 
action  of  either  the  Court  or  counsel  for  defendant  or 
the  people. 

II 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  the 
jury  are  not  to  be  influenced,  in  the  consideration  of 
this  case,  by  any  comment  or  expression  of  opinion 
in  the  newspaper  reports  of  this  case,  and  they  must 
disregard  any  statement  or  comment  contained  in  any 

139 


I40  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

such  report,  if  same  has  in  any  way  been  brought  to 
their  attention. 

Ill 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that,  in  considering  this  case,  after  its  submission  to 
them,  the  jury  must  proceed  upon  the  presumption 
that  the  accused,  the  defendant  herein,  is  innocent  of 
the  crime  charged  in  the  indictment  arid  that  it  is 
necessary  for  the  commonweahh  to  overcome  this 
presumption  by  evidence  to  convince  them,  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt,  that  the  defendant  is  guihy  of  the 
crime  charged  against  him  in  the  indictment. 

IV 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that,  in  consideration  of  this  case,  the  jury  are  bound 
to  act  and  proceed  upon  the  presumption  that  the 
accused  is  an  innocent  boy,  and  this  presumption 
must  continue  throughout  the  trial. 


Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that,  the  defendant  being  charged  with  the  crime  of 
murder,  the  commonwealth  is  bound  to  prove  every 


APPENDIX   C  141 

and  all  the  essential  facts  necessary  to  constitute  this 
crime  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  before  the  jury  can 
convict  the  defendant  of  the  crime  charged  in  the 
indictment. 

VI 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that,  upon  the  whole  case,  if  the  commonwealth  has 
failed  to  prove  all  of  the  facts  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt,  the  defendant  is  entitled  to  be  acquitted. 

VII 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  the  burden  in  this  case  rests  with  the  common- 
wealth, from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  trial,  to 
establish,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  every  fact  essen- 
tial to  the  conviction  of  the  defendant,  and  if  the 
commonwealth  has  failed  to  prove  such  charge  beyond 
a  reasonable  doubt,  the  defendant  is  entitled  to  an 
acquittal. 

VIII 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  the  unintentional  killing  of  a  human  being  by 
another  without  motive,  intent,  premeditation,  is 
neither  murder  nor  manslaughter. 


142  THE  CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 

IX 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  the  questions  of  deliberation  and  premeditation, 
intent  and  motive,  are  purely  questions  of  fact,  to  be 
determined  by  the  jury  from  the  evidence  alone. 


Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  if 
the  jury  cannot  say,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  that 
the  defendant  was  sane  at  the  time  of  the  commission 
of  the  act,  and  cannot  say  whether,  at  that  time,  he 
was  sane  or  insane,  the  defendant  must  be  acquitted. 

XI 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  if,  at  the  time  the  defendant  committed  the 
act  charged  against  him,  upon  seeing  the  deceased,  he 
was  thrown  into  a  state  of  mind  from  which  he  was 
deprived  of  his  understanding,  so  as  to  be  unaware  of 
the  nature  and  quality  of  the  act  he  committed,  or  so 
as  to  be  unable  to  distinguish  between  right  and  wrong 
in  reference  to  that  particular  act  at  the  time  of  its 
commission,  this  defendant  must  be  acquitted. 


APPENDIX  C  143 

XII 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that,  ahhough  sanity  is  assured  and  presumed  to  be  the 
normal  and  natural  state  of  the  human  mind,  when 
imbecility  is  once  shown  to  exist  in  a  person,  it  is  pre- 
sumed to  exist  and  continue  until  the  presumption  is 
overcome  by  contrary  or  repelling  evidence  proving 
sanity. 

XIII 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  if  defendant  was  deprived  of  his  reason  at  the  time 
the  act  charged  against  him  was  committed,  and  which 
resulted  from  a  settled  and  well-established  mental 
alienation,  or  from  the  pressure  and  overpowering 
weight  of  circumstances  occurring  before  and  at  the 
time  of  the  commission  of  said  act,  the  said  defendant 
is  legally  irresponsible  for  it  and  must  be  acquitted. 

XIV 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  if,  at  the  time  of  the  commission  of  the  act,  the 
defendant  was  under  the  influence  of  a  diseased  mind, 
and  was  really  unconscious  that  he  was  committing 
a  crime,  this  defendant  must  be  acquitted. 


144  THE   CRIMINAL  IMBECILE 


XV 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  the  insanity  of  the  defendant  need  not  be  proven 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt. 

XVI 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  the 
jury,  in  considering  this  case,  are  bound  to  act  upon 
the  presumption  that  the  accused,  the  defendant,  is 
innocent,  and  should  endeavor,  if  possible,  to  reconcile 
all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  with  that  of  innocence. 

XVII 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  the  burden  of  proof  rests  with  the  commonwealth 
in  this  case,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  trial, 
and  the  commonwealth  are  bound  to  prove  that  the 
defendant  committed  the  crime  charged  in  the  indict- 
ment beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  otherwise  the  defend- 
ant is  entitled  to  be  acquitted. 

XVIII 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  the 
jury  must  be  satisfied  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  from 
the  evidence  of  the  case,  of  the  sanity  of  the  defendant 


APPENDIX   C  145 

at  the  time  of  the  commission  of  the  act  charged  in 
the  indictment,  and  if  the  people  fail  to  establish  the 
sanity  of  the  defendant  at  the  time  of  the  commission 
of  the  act  charged  in  the  indictment,  this  defendant 
cannot  be  convicted  of  any  crime  and  is  entitled  to  an 
acquittal. 

XIX 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  the  law  does  not  require  that  the  insanity,  im- 
becility, or  mental  aberration  which  absolves  from  crime 
should  exist  for  any  definite  period,  and  only  that  it 
existed  at  the  moment  when  the  act  occurred. 

XX 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  if  the  insanity,  imbecility,  or  mental  aberration 
which  absolves  from  crime  operated  at  the  moment 
that  the  act  was  committed,  that  is  sufficient  in  law 
to  absolve  from  guilt,  and  this  defendant  cannot  be 
convicted  of  the  offense  charged  in  the  indictment,  or 
any  other  oifense. 

XXI 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  the  commonwealth  must  satisfy  the  jury  beyond 


146  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

all  reasonable  doubt,  that,  at  the  moment  the  act  al- 
leged in  the  indictment  was  committed  by  the  defend- 
ant, he  had  reason,  perception,  and  understanding 
sufficient  to  enable  him  to  discern  right  from  wrong, 
and  that  if  he  had  not,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  jury  to 
acquit  this  defendant. 

XXII 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  if 
the  jury  believe  that  the  defendant  did  not  suffer  from 
any  mental  aberration  which  would  absolve  him  from 
punishment  for  the  act  charged  in  the  indictment  prior 
to  the  commission  of  the  act,  or  subsequent  thereto, 
but  that  such  state  of  mental  aberration  did  exist  at 
the  moment  when  the  act  occurred  which  the  defendant 
stands  charged  with,  this  defendant  cannot  be  convicted 
of  the  crime  charged  in  the  indictment,  or  any  other 
crime,  and  must  be  acquitted. 

XXIII 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  if  there  is  a  reasonable  doubt  in  the  minds  of  the 
jury  as  to  whether  the  act  charged  in  the  indictment  was 
committed  by  the  defendant  while  he  was  unable  to 
discern  between  right  and  wrong,  or  if  the  evidence  is 


APPENDIX   C  147 

equally  balanced  as  to  this,  so  that  the  jury  cannot 
safely  and  conscientiously  determine  whether  the  kill- 
ing of  the  deceased  was  intentional,  or  was  committed 
by  the  defendant  while  he  was  unable  to  discern  be- 
tween right  and  wrong  with  respect  to  the  act,  then 
this  defendant  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  that  doubt 
and  entitled  to  an  acquittal. 

XXIV 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  if  it  finds  that  the  defendant  is  of  a  mental  age 
of  under  twelve  years,  he  is  presumed  to  be  incapable 
of  the  commission  of  crime.  {Refused) 


XXV 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  if  it  finds  that  the  defendant  is  of  a  mental  age 
of  under  twelve  years,  he  is  presumed  to  be  incapable 
of  crime  and  that  presumption  is  not  removed  by 
proof  that  he  had  sufficient  capacity  to  understand  the 
act  charged  against  him  and  know  its  wrongfulness, 
except  by  evidence  that  satisfied  the  jury  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt.  {Refused) 


148  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

XXVI 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  if 
the  jury  finds  that  the  defendant  is  of  a  mental  age  of 
under  twelve  years,  the  evidence  that  he  understood 
the  nature  or  quality  of  the  act  charged  against  him 
and  knew  its  wrongfulness  must  be  strong  and  clear 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt. 

XXVII 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  it  must  find  that  the  understanding  of  and  the  ca- 
pacity for  committing  a  crime  is  measured  not  by  the 
chronological  years  of  the  defendant,  but  by  the  strength 
of  the  defendant's  understanding  and  judgment. 

{Refused) 

XXVIII 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  if 
the  jury  find  that  the  defendant  was  of  a  mental  age 
of  under  twelve  years,  he  was  incapable  of  commit- 
ting the  crime  charged  in  the  indictment,  unless  the 
commonwealth  has  made  strong,  clear,  and  convincing 
proof  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  the  defendant 
was  capable  of  discerning  the  difference  between  right 
and  wrong  or  knew  the  quality  and  nature  of  his  act. 

{Refused) 


APPENDIX  C  149 

XXIX 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  the 
burden  is  upon  the  commonwealth  to  show  that  the 
defendant  has  intelHgence  and  maturity  of  judgment 
sufficient  to  render  him  capable  of  harboring  a  criminal 
intent. 

XXX 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  if 
no  motive  has  been  established  for  the  crime,  the  jury 
must  regard  it  as  important  in  its  bearing  upon  the 
question  of  the    defendant's    mental  condition  at    the 

time  of  the  commission  of  the  act  charged  against  him. 

* 

XXXI 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  if  the  commonwealth  have  established  merely  a 
slight,  trifling,  and  inconsequential  motive  for  the  com- 
mission of  the  act  charged  in  the  indictment,  they  should 
regard  it  as  important  and  give  it  more  consideration 
in  connection  with  the  question  of  the  defendant's 
mental  condition. 

XXXII 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  the  commission  of  the  crime  charged  in  the  indict- 


I50  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

ment  by  a  child  of  tender  years  from  its  very  nature 
raises  the  question  of  abnormality  of  the  defendant's 
mind  and  in  the  absence  of  clear,  strong,  and  convinc- 
ing evidence  on  the  part  of  the  commonwealth,  it 
must  conclude  that  the  defendant's  mental  condition 
was  such  that  he  did  not  understand  the  wrongfulness 
of  his  act  or  understand  the  nature  and  quality  of  his 
act. 

XXXIII 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  evi- 
dence of  the  want  of  a  rational  and  reasonable  motive 
on  the  part  of  the  defendant  for  the  perpetration  of 
the  act  charged  in  the  indictment  is  to  be  considered 
by  the  jury  as  strong  corroboration  of  the  fact  of  his 
mental  irresponsibility. 

XXXIV 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  the 
perpetration  of  the  act  charged  in  the  indictment  with-  '\ 
out  any  apparent  motive  or  object,  but  against  every  i 
motive  which  would  appear  to  be  naturally  influential 
with  the  defendant,  that  they  must  at  once  inquire 
whether  or  not  the  defendant  was  of  sound  mind  and 
take  into  consideration  with  the  other  evidence  of  this 
case  that  he  was  not  of  sound  mind,  the  absence  of 


J 


APPENDIX   C  151 

sufficient  motive  must  lead  them  to  conclude  that  he 
was  of  unsound  mind  and  could  not  distinguish  between 
right  and  wrong  or  know  the  nature  and  quality  of 
his  act. 

XXXV 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  the 
absence  of  a  clear  and  convincing  motive  in  itself  is 
evidence  of  an  unsound  mind, 

XXXVI 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  if 
the  defendant  acted  without  any  reasonable  or  rational 
motive  or  object,  but  against  every  motive  and  object, 
which  it  would  appear  should  have  been  influential 
with  him,  that  fact  in  itself  raises  a  presumption  that 
the  defendant  was  of  such  unsound  mind  that  he  could 
not  distinguish  between  right  and  wrong  or  know  the 
nature  or  quality  of  his  act. 

XXXVII 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  they  have  no  right  to  presume  a  motive  from  the 
mere  commission  of  the  crime  and  have  no  right  to 
speculate,  guess,  or  surmise  or  supply  any  motive  for 
the  commission  of  the  act  charged  in  the  indictment. 


152  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

XXXVIII 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  the 
failure  of  the  commonwealth  to  call  as  witnesses  Drs. 
Maybon  and  Palmer,  who  made  examinations  of  the 
defendant,  to  testify  as  to  his  mental  condition,  raises 
the  inference  that  if  they  had  been  called  as  witnesses, 
they  would  have  testified  adversely  to  the  common- 
wealth in  respect  to  the  defendant's  mental  condition. 

XXXIX 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  from 
the  failure  of  the  commonwealth  to  call  as  witnesses 
Drs.  Maybon  and  Palmer,  who  examined  the  defend- 
ant, the  jury  may  infer  that  they  would  have  testified 
that  the  defendant  was  a  high-grade  imbecile  who  was 
laboring  under  such  defect  of  reason  as  not  to  know 
the  nature  and  quality  of  the  act  of  which  he  is  charged 
in  the  indictment  or  not  to  know  the  act  was  Wrong  at 
the  time  it  was  committed. 

XL 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  from 
the  failure  of  the  commonwealth  to  call  as  witnesses 
Drs.  Maybon  and  Palmer,  the  jury  may  infer  that  had 


APPENDIX   C  153 

they  been  called  they  would  have  testified  unfavorably 
and  adversely  to  the  commonwealth,  especially  in  the 
absence  of  any  explanation  made  under  oath  as  to 
why  they  were  not  called. 

XLl 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  if 
the  jury  acquit  the  defendant  on  the  ground  of  in- 
sanity, in  that  event  the  jury  should  specify  in  its 
verdict  that  it  acquits  him  on  the  ground  of  insanity. 

XLII 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  if 
the  jury  acquit  the  defendant  upon  the  ground  of 
insanity,  it  will  become  the  duty  of  the  Court  to  order 
him  committed  to  a  State  Asylum. 

XLIII 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  that  if 
the  jury  acquit  the  defendant  on  the  ground  of  in- 
sanity, in  this  case  such  insanity  will  mean  imbecility, 
and  that  as  imbecility  cannot  be  cured,  it  will  become 
the  duty  of  the  Court  to  order  him  committed  to  a 
State  Asylum  for  the  rest  of  his  actual  life. 


154  THE   CRIMINAL   IMBECILE 

XLIV 

Defendant  requests  your  Honor  to  charge  the  jury 
that  the  denial  of  the  several  motions  made  by  defend- 
ant's counsel  throughout  the  trial,  and  the  rulings  of 
the  Court  upon  objections,  and  refusals  by  the  Court 
to  charge  as  requested,  are  not  to  be  taken  as  any  ex- 
pression of  opinion  on  the  part  of  the  Court  upon  the 
facts  of  this  case,  but  are  only  rulings  upon  the  law, 
about  which  the  jury  has  nothing  to  do. 

Note.  Requests  XXIV,  XXV,  XXVII,  and  XXVIII,  the 
Court  refused  to  charge. 


INDEX 


Abstract  ideas,  lack  of,  in  morons,  98. 

Actions  after  crime,  Gianini,  25,  27. 

Pennington,  50-52. 

Tronson,  76-78. 
Alcoholism,  no. 

Barr,  Dr.  Martin  W.,  statement  of,  86. 
Beecher,  Miss,  annoyed  by  Gianini,  23. 
Binet  tests,  and  school  experience,  35, 

38,  54-    , 
use  of,  in  Gianini  case,  32-35. 
in  Pennington  case,  53. 
in  Tronson  case,  80. 

Capital  punishment,  loi. 
Cause  of  Gianini's  condition,  39-41. 
Causes  of  feeble-mindedness,  39. 
"Charity"  in  Binet  tests,  34, 
Children,  testimony  of,  90. 

actions  of,  94. 

suggestibility  of,  63. 
Code  quoted,  128. 
Colonization,  107. 
Confession,  Gianini,  4,  9,  10. 

Pennington,  44,  53. 

Tronson,  67-80. 

characteristic  of  imbeciles,  16,  29. 

childishness  of  Pennington's,  55,  56. 

not  necessarily  true,   17. 

why  Gianini  made  a,  15. 
Confessions  compared,  83,  90-93. 
Courtroom,  conduct  in,  30,  67,  92. 
Coward,  the  imbecile,  23. 
Cretinism,  40. 
Crime,  details  of,  Gianini,  122,  132. 

Pennington,  47. 

Tronson,  74. 
Criminal  imbeciles,  what  should  be  done 

with,  I02. 
Criminals,   50  per  cent  feeble-minded, 
106. 


Defense  in  case  of,  Gianini,  2,  $. 

Pennington,  43. 

Tronson,  66. 
Delinquencies,  previous,  of  Gianini,  7, 
37,  lis,  "6. 

of  Tronson,  68,  69,  82. 
Display,  love  of,  29. 

Experts,  qualifications  of,  85. 

Feeble-mindedness,  causes  of,  39,   106. 

may  be  exterminated,  108. 
Feeble-mindedness   in   family,   Gianini, 
40. 

Pennington,    87. 
Finger  prints,  26. 

Gianini,  Jean,  case  of,  1-41. 

actions  after  the  deed,  25,  27. 
attitude  of  Miss  Beecher  toward,  7, 

119. 
disregards  counsel's  warning,  30. 
evidences   of   pride   in  deed,  16-19, 

29,  123. 
facts  as  established  by  testimony,  3. 
incidents  in  life  of,  1 13-125. 
indifferent  to  crime,  10,  29,  120,  125. 
interest  in  stories  of  crime,  26,  118, 

121,  123. 
mentality  of,  13. 
mother  of,  40,   109-112. 
previous    delinquencies    of,    7,    37, 

115,  116. 
stories  about,  31,  113. 
teased  little  children,  32,  116,  119. 
threats  made  by,  121,  125,  131. 
Great  White  Way,  117. 

Hypothetical    question,    defense,    109- 
126. 
prosecution,  131-136. 


IS5 


156 


INDEX 


Idiot,  defined,  12. 
Imbecile,  career  of  an,  54, 
Imbecility  defined,  11. 

not  curable,  102. 
Imbecility,  defense  of,  Gianini,  2,  5. 

Pennington,  43. 

Tronson,  66,  80. 
Imprisonment  for  life,  89,  lOl,  104. 
Indian,  Gianini  plays,  23. 
Insanity  in  relation  to  crime,  102. 
Instinct  to  kill,  105. 

Institution  for  feeble-minded,  the  logi- 
cal place,  104. 
Intelligence,    tests    of,    admitted    into 

court,  2,  32-35,  53,  80. 
Interest   in   crime,   Gianini's,   26,    118, 
121,  123. 

Jail,  attitude  in,  Gianini,  30;   Penning- 
ton, 55- 
examined  in,  Gianini,  29;   Penning- 
ton, 53,  56. 

Jealousy  of  March,  53. 

Liberty  of  defendant  not  desired,  88, 
103. 

Mclntyre,  John  F.,  103. 
March,  convicted,  43. 

convicted  upon  Pennington's  testi- 
mony, 90. 

Pennington's  relation  to,  55,  56,  64. 
Masturbation,  117. 
Melancholia,    110-112. 
Mental  defectiveness,  inherited,  39,  106. 

recognized  early,  105. 
Mentality  of,  Gianini,  13. 

Pennington,  53. 

Tronson,  66. 
Money  as  motive,  57. 
Moron,  defined,  il. 

abstract  ideas  lacking  in,  98. 
Mother  of  Gianini,  40,  109-I13. 
Motive,  Gianini's,  4,  20-25. 

March's,  53. 

Pennington's,  53,  56-60. 

Tronson's,  76,  80. 

Pennington,  Roland,  case  of,  42-64. 
actions  after  the  deed,  52-53. 


conduct  at  trial,  92. 

confession,  44-53. 

disregards  lawyer's  caution,  55. 

mentality  of,  53. 

relation  to  March,  55,  56,  64. 

testimony   against   March,   43,   90, 
92. 

trial,  43. 
Preparations  for  crime,  Gianini,  6. 

Pennington,  47. 

Tronson,  70. 
Prevention,  82,  87,  104-108. 
Propagation,  prevention  of,  106-108. 
Psychologists,  testimony  of,  32,  53,  66. 
Punishment  for  criminal  imbeciles,  88, 
100-108. 

Quality  of  an  act,  meaning  of,  96. 

St.  Vincent's  School,  7,  116. 

School,  failure  in,  sign  of  mental  defect, 

37- 

Gianini  case,   35-37,  124. 

Pennington  case,  54. 

Tronson  case,  66. 
Segregation,  107. 

Sexual  theory  of  Gianini's  crime,  20. 
Society,  duty  of,  82. 

protection  for,  100. 
Speech  development  retarded,  113. 
State  prison  for  the  imbecile  manslayer, 

89,  104. 
Sterilization,  107. 
Stories  about  Gianini, 

"Indian,"  113. 

"Soup  and  safety,"  31. 

"Strap  oil,"  32. 

teased  little  children,  32,  113,  I16, 
119. 

"Thief,"  114. 
Suggestion,  discussed,  61-63. 

Pennington,  victim  of,  56-64. 
Superintendents  as  specialists,  88. 

Testimony  of,  children,  90. 
experts,  85. 
Pennington  against  March,  43,  90, 

92. 
psychologists,  32,  53,  66. 
witnesses,  3-8,  18,  31,  35-37. 


INDEX 


157 


Trial,  Gianini,  i,  30,  31. 

Pennington,  43,  92. 

Tronson,  66,  67. 
Tronson,  Fred,  case  of,  65-82. 

actions  after  the  deed,  76-78. 

confession  of,  76-80. 

mentality  of,  66. 

previous   delinquencies   of,   68,   69, 
82. 


Types  considered,  of  imbecility,  83. 
of  feeble-mindedness,  12-14. 

Verdict,  Gianini  case,  i,  2. 
Pennington  case,  43. 
Tronson  case,  66. 

Witnesses,  children  as,  90. 
Wrench  asked  about,  7. 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America. 


i 


2883      « 


900 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  ihe  last  date  stamped  below. 


'.ff.pf^ 


,p.\jRl 


HON 


\ 


RECEIVED 

LD-URL 

U./9    196E 

AM 
k 


'h 


Form  L9-5m-5,'t)l  (By200s'±)-i4i 


RECEiVEU 

APR  1 1  '«986 

CIRC.  DEPT.  URL 
RECD  LD-URt 

DEC3  0l98e> 
NOV  2  3  10^7 

PM 
10 

Lu.uHL^  NOV  0  1  to 
I  I^YRI.  AUG17lro- 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  997  511 


3  1158  00878  9900 


'X 


7) 


■'■33 

■  r-w 

■^ 
•-1 


